Onion Skinnable Rules System

[Justin Berman]

Hi everyone. I have been reading heavily on the RPG Theory and GNS Theory forums. A friend and I were speaking today about the universal system he was trying to design as well as a great deal of the information within this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=2051.15

In many universal system, many competing sets of rules are presented which supersede one another depending upon which set the group accepts as part of "the rules."  Sometimes these rules create a new superset of the current rules, sometimes they create a new subset; but could a system be designed with the intent that a given abstraction of the rules be peeled away easily.

I realize that this verge on RPG Theory, but the people here seem so intelligent and dedicated, that I couldn't think of where else I would want to air these thoughts out in front of others. Plus I know I wont receive conciliatory back patting here, I can expect some cold hard stares applied to my thoughts, which is good IMO.

The analogy to the onion skin is that the onion has many layers, each layer fully contains all the previous layers and is contained by the layers "above" it. In system terms, such a system would resolve extremely simply at the core, perhaps with a simple opposed roll between the two characters, irrespective of relevant modifiers or dice. The more focus that is to be placed on a given area of the system (where the areas can be generally defined (I don't consider this exhaustive) as combat/physical task, social tasks, puzzle/mental tasks) the more layers of the rules you introduce to govern that area. The intent remains that you can always strip back down to that core with little effort. 

As a brief example:
A core layer combat could simply roll 1 die vs 1 die from the opponent, the higher score "wins" combat.
A layer up from that we can add a "combat skill" which introduces die pools that reflect skill in combat.
A layer up from that we can diversify the combat skill into melee and ranged, and potential add simply/obvious modifiers to the rolls.
A layer up from that we can diversify skills even farther, and add more complex modifiers.
and etc.

Any and all thoughts and reasons on the feasibility of such an idea, and the challenges it would face would be appreciated. Any questions, especially intellectual ones, are greatly appreciated.

[Madheretic]

Hey! First-time poster? Welcome to the Forge!

I'd like to throw out a few questions so you can give us a better feel for what you have there and what you want to do with it:

1.) When do the players using this system choose which layer to use? Is it strictly before play begins or are players expected to move among the layers freely in play?

2.) Will each of area of the system (combat tasks, social tasks, etc.) have set layers with defined characteristics, or will players determine which rules to apply to each layer? Does (for example) third layer combat always distinguish between ranged and melee combat and provide simple modifiers, or could players choose instead to add the system for tracking damage and specific maneuvers at that layer and put the ranged/melee distinction further up in the layers?

[matthijs]

FUDGE does this to a certain extent. It's probably much a matter of taste; a system like this will appeal to rules tinkerers, but not to those who want a system playable "out of the box".

It's not as easy as it might seem to design a system like this: There might be interactions between systems on different layers, which become crippled or broken if all layers aren't used. (For example, if you decide to use all Magic layers, but just the most basic Combat layer, what do you do about magic spells that affect both the most basic and the more sophisticated combat layers?)

[Call Me Curly]

Please correct me if my understanding of this thread is off the mark,
but isn't it the case that Justin is merely is acknowledging a widespread
design problem: that the 'stable kernel' of a game system tends to
get all sorts of stuff tacked-on.

And he's suggesting that a modular approach, in which subsequent
alterations are flagged as-such, would allow the user to sort-out
compatibility problems.

When I was a kid, "Basic Set" D&D covered PC Levels 1-3, then
"Expert Set" covered 4-10, Companion Rules covered  15 - 25;
Master Rules from 26 - 36; Immortal Rules from 37 on up.

Adventure modules for Companion, Master, and Immortal were
clearly labelled as only compatible with those rules sets.
TSR's solution was to make the more-esoteric subsequent
rules non-backward compatible with low level play.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/highdd.html

Likewise, the convention of numbering different versions of
software helps keep track of how canonical new 'rules' are.

This is very much a design concern.  Not abstract theory.

I suggest adopting the Department of Homeland security's
color-coding system:  Label core rules cool blue.  Subsequent
additions will be labelled yellow, orange, red... depending on
how fishy and disruptive they are.

[contracycle]

And he's suggesting that a modular approach, in which subsequent
alterations are flagged as-such, would allow the user to sort-out
compatibility problems.

Yes, but I think its an open question how "planned" those box set expansions were.  Arguable setting this out from the outset would obviate even most potential problems, and have the means for solving those problems presented part and parcel with the rules proper.  They will in fact be rules, not adjustements.

[apeiron]

FUDGE does this to a certain extent. It's probably much a matter of taste; a system like this will appeal to rules tinkerers, but not to those who want a system playable "out of the box".

It's not as easy as it might seem to design a system like this: There might be interactions between systems on different layers, which become crippled or broken if all layers aren't used. (For example, if you decide to use all Magic layers, but just the most basic Combat layer, what do you do about magic spells that affect both the most basic and the more sophisticated combat layers?)

i suppose one solution is that at the "Blue Core" level and beyond, that abilities and powers affect certain units/aspects no matter what level of complexity is in use.  For instance a very complicated magick system and "hurt him" combat system would change only "health". 

It would be very tricky to enforce consistency, but if done well, it might be very exciting to groups of mixed player types.  i like crunchy power systems, but light combat systems.  Give me both and i'll be happy.  Allow the combat physics expert to factor in the wind and muzzle velocity of a M16 vs an AK47 and he'll be happy.  Allow both in the same game and we'll be happy in the same group.

If you want to build this system, go for it, even if ppl say it will be difficult/impossible.  Even if you don't finish it or get it right, the exercise will do you good and maybe someone else can take it to the next level.

Blue Level
Attributes: Body, Mind, Social

Class: Fighter, Spell Caster, Expert

Spells: Heal, Harm, Protect, Know, Move

Skills: Knowledge, Criminal, History

Green Level

Attributes:
Toughness, Strength, Agility,
Intelligence, Will, Perception,
Looks, Charm, Empathy

Class:
Knight, Barbarian, Healer, Arcanist, Thief, Bard

Spells: Heal Poison, Harm at Range with Fire, Teleport, Armor Spell

Skills: Pick Lock, Heraldry, Carouse, Sneak, Medicine

[Justin Berman]

1.) When do the players using this system choose which layer to use? Is it strictly before play begins or are players expected to move among the layers freely in play?

2.) Will each of area of the system (combat tasks, social tasks, etc.) have set layers with defined characteristics, or will players determine which rules to apply to each layer? Does (for example) third layer combat always distinguish between ranged and melee combat and provide simple modifiers, or could players choose instead to add the system for tracking damage and specific maneuvers at that layer and put the ranged/melee distinction further up in the layers?

1.) My original intent was that the layer used in the major areas would be determined by the group before the game started.  The idea of each player being able to tune the game for their own level of enjoyment is highly intriguing though. I forsee a great deal of potential complications if a character at a high level of abstraction (closer to the core) seeks to challenge one who has a higher level of specificity in an area (more rules, farther from the core.) Further, where do GM characters fit into things?

2.) The thought was that a sensible system of abstractions be put forth, something in which each layer logically follows from the previous layers. I would say that people could customize the rules as they see fit instead of following my pattern, but I have heard the sentiment echoed strongly in different places here that "the Golden Rule is a lie."

Call me Curly is using the Computer Sciency terms that I had hesitated to state, but he did a good job of summarizing some of my thoughts.  However, one of the core points is that the system would allow the group to establish rules that support the themes of their game, while making it easy to look from a higher and higher of abstraction.

FUDGE does this to a certain extent. It's probably much a matter of taste; a system like this will appeal to rules tinkerers, but not to those who want a system playable "out of the box".

Actually, I had really hoped that with a few decisions at the formation of the social contract for the game (not the group) this system could be used to easily set up a game with system tuned to support what the group likes and wants to explore.

[matthijs]

Justin, I know you want to keep this on a theoretical, intellectual level - but to be honest, I don't think that's going to get you any further.

I suggest making a very rough draft of the core rules for three fields (say combat, magic, forces), then making two layers on top of the core rules, and see what problems you run into. Post that, and we'll all know what we're talking about.

[Justin Berman]

Justin, I know you want to keep this on a theoretical, intellectual level - but to be honest, I don't think that's going to get you any further.

I suggest making a very rough draft of the core rules for three fields (say combat, magic, forces), then making two layers on top of the core rules, and see what problems you run into. Post that, and we'll all know what we're talking about.

As you wish:

Combat:

• Core (or Blue or whatever): Opposing Characters Roll 1 die each, the person with the highest roll "wins" the combat.
• Layer 1: Introduction of the concept of a skill.
  Characters have a skill entitled "Combat." Resolution is handled as each player rolling 1 die and adding their "Combat" score to the result.
• Layer 2: Introduction of the concept of distance, and the difference between ranged and melee combat.
  Characters have a skill entitled "Melee" and a skill entitled "Ranged."  A "Melee" character fighting at "Ranged" distance is penalized by a subtraction to their overall roll result. Likewise a "Ranged" attack at "Melee" distance suffers a similar penalty.  Whoever rolls highest, after subtracting the penalty, wins the combat.
• Layer 3: Introduction of the concept of "Health/Hit Points."
  Characters have a resource which we will refer to as "Hit Points" and it shall be considered to be a factor of relevant statistics. When two characters engage in combat, the amount which the victor defeats the loser by (e.g. I score a 6 by rolling a 3 and having "Melee" of 3, you score 8 because you roll a 5 and have a 3 in "Melee", you defeat me by 2) is subtracted from the losers "Hit Points."
• ...

Magic:

• Core: Opposing Characters Roll 1 die each, if the character using magic scores higher, than they affect the other person, otherwise, they fail
• Layer 1: Introduction of the Magic Skill/Resist Pair
  "Magic" and "Magic Resist" are introduced as skills, the magic user rolls one die and adds his "Magic" score to it, the resisting character rolls 1 die and adds his "Magic Resist" to it, if the magic user scores higher, he affects the other, if the other scores higher, he fails.
• Layer 2: Introduction of the concept of Magical School
  "Magic" is replaced by a selection of skills representing major classes of magic. "Combat Magic" "Transformation Magic" "Illusion Magic" "Healing Magic" "Knowing Magic" instead of having a skill in "Magic" the character uses his relevant skill depending on the type of magic being attempted.
• Layer 3: Introduction of the concept of the Spell, and Limited Use of Magic
  Magic use must be limited in a way, at this level, we estable that there is a power source which calling on magic draws on.  That power source is within the mage and is represented by a character resource called "Mana." The more powerful the effect to be achieved, the more "Mana" it requires, and we shall say that "Mana" replenishes every game session.The various schools are all defined to have a variety of abilities, at this layer, we quantify each of those abilities into spells, with the more powerful spells costing more "Mana" and assessing a penalty on the roll of the magus who attempts them, in the same way that penalties are assessed in the above combat section.
• ...

Yeah, quite a *rough* draft, but hopefully it will server to illustrate my points enough for further discussion.

[apeiron]

Lovely, keep it coming!  If you would like any help, holler. 

[matthijs]

Okay, cool!

Here's a few questions to illustrate the problems a designer will have to consider:

Say you have a spell "Bowyer's Steady Spirit" (Magic Layer 3) that gives you +2 to hit with a bow at close range.

- What happens if you only use Combat Layer 1, which has no range rules/effects at all? Does the designer give you a range of different effects based on what Combat Layer you use? ("CL Core: No effect. CL1: Spell gives +1 on your die roll. CL2: Spell gives you +2 to hit at close range").

- What if you and your opponent use different Combat Layers? Say you're at CL Core, and he's at CL1 - do you get no effect, or +1 to your die roll?

- Do you have one mana cost for the spell no matter what combination of CL's you and your opponent are at, or do you have different costs based on different combinations?

[Justin Berman]

Okay, cool!

Here's a few questions to illustrate the problems a designer will have to consider:

Say you have a spell "Bowyer's Steady Spirit" (Magic Layer 3) that gives you +2 to hit with a bow at close range.

- What happens if you only use Combat Layer 1, which has no range rules/effects at all? Does the designer give you a range of different effects based on what Combat Layer you use? ("CL Core: No effect. CL1: Spell gives +1 on your die roll. CL2: Spell gives you +2 to hit at close range").

- What if you and your opponent use different Combat Layers? Say you're at CL Core, and he's at CL1 - do you get no effect, or +1 to your die roll?

- Do you have one mana cost for the spell no matter what combination of CL's you and your opponent are at, or do you have different costs based on different combinations?

1) The answer you provide for your own question is almost exactly how I envision that type of interaction.
2) Right now, I am working from the assumption that the Social Contract of the game implies that the everyone uses the same layer for a give narea, i.e. the group agrees on combat layer 3 or the group agrees on magic layer 5, etc.
3) Well, I definetly believe that as you go up the layers of magic, you may have to change the costs, but that the mana costs of spells will be determined by the magic layer, not the combat layer.

You addressed a crucially important point here with your spell example. How do you handle things that cross boundaries between areas of the game, Should a given spell like this have 7 tiers of rules because combat has 7 tiers (for example, not necessarily fact)? Should it be left to the GM with you providing general guidelines as to how the spell should function in the text of the rules?

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

You addressed a crucially important point here with your spell example. How do you handle things that cross boundaries between areas of the game?

Uh... don't? Seriously, there's no reason to assume the "areas" will overlap--and so far it has been an assumption. Just say flat-out that "Combat is Combat, and Magic is Magic."

In fact, as your resolution system is effects- or results-based, the flavor of a given character's "combatability" or "magic userness" needn't be encoded into rules at all. You want to say you are a "battle mage" who flings fireballs into the fray... fine, buy up Combat, because that's how you have an effect in a Combat, no matter how you define it. If you need to also simulate that you can do Magic-style effects (control, polymorph, whatnot) then you also must buy Magic.

In short, define the bailiwick of each general effect "area" and don't LET them overlap. Of course, this slightly changes your challenge: now, you must figure out a way to build up layers without introducing specifics that might suggest other areas... hmmm, or maybe just the opposite: you will need to, at some layer (around CL 3 or 4, it seems) begin to introduce all possible "flavors" of Combat for your game, including different types of magical combat (at which point folks might begin to wonder why they aren't in Magic).

Anyway, I'd recommend you start at the Core Layer with VERY generalized effects--I'd say "combat" is even too specific, for the Core. Something like "Damage Other" or "Stop Other" seems more core, to my thinking, with nuances of methodology (beat them to a pulp or turn them into a toadstool) being add-on layers of detail and extra system.

Should a given spell like this have 7 tiers of rules because combat has 7 tiers (for example, not necessarily fact)? Should it be left to the GM with you providing general guidelines as to how the spell should function in the text of the rules?

Answering the second first, I'd say to never "leave it to the GM"--that's not a game system product, it's a suggestion of how a game system product could be made by the customer (for which you charge the customer).

As for how many tiers, that only applies if you persist with Core Layers that could overlap (thus, you need the translations that each tier provides). But even if you are referring to "how would a given 'spell' ratchet up the layers," I'd say to STILL focus on fundamental, generalized effects, not per-spell specifics. Thus, EVERY Lvl2 involves a +1 to the roll; every Lvl3 involves an opposition of postures (ex: range vs melee); every Lvl4 involves specialization of methods (ex: polymorph vs translocate vs cause injury), and so forth.

You have a cool idea for a system of "toggles" that GMs and players could use to dial-in the detail level and granularity of system they want for a given game. I think, however, you have focused too closely on "traditional" break-downs of game effects, when you would be better served addressing the most general effects that a player can cause vis a vis an adversary or the game world.

*shameless plug ON*
For example, check out my sig for a generic LARP system in which I have tried to do just that: focus squarely on core general effects, not reams of flavorful detail.
*shameless plug OFF*

[apeiron]

i'll suggest:

Start up a wiki or posting versions of this
Invite others to play
Help others on their games
Give yourself permission to make mistakes
Don't worry about what other games do
Start at the center and work your way up and out
Version, Test, Version, Lather, Rinse, Repeat
When it stops being fun, do something else, come back later