New to Forge/Advice on Choosing Ruleset

[Ben S.]

Hi, I'm new to the Forge, and I'm looking for some advice about how to structure a potential game that's at least a few months away (really, probably several months away) at this point.  I've dropped by the boards here every once and a while for a couple years, and I have a general idea about the issues you discuss here, which is really why I'm posting here for advice.

I just moved to Chicago.  I'm gaming with a new group I met on rpg.net.  I generally like them as people, and I'm becoming fast friends with one of them.  They're a pretty "traditional" style rpg group, and we're in the middle of a long campaign of mutants and masterminds.  I'm not the GM for this.  The GM is a very traditional style GM, and he's excellent - very creative and fair.  We play every other week.  I'm trying to get people in the group to branch out a little, and we just started a Burning Empires campaign (still in World Burning).  I've never played a game so far from traditional before, and we'll see how it goes.  It seems like Forge folk like group dynamic background, so there it is.

Anyway, I want to start a game that includes the following characteristics and try it as an experiment (you know, see how the group reacts, and really, how I react):

(1) More cinematic action/combat than, say, even the lite D20 system in mutants and masterminds
(2) Very low crunch level.  I don't have time to prep much in advance (e.g. no statting out NPCs), and I feel that really well specified rules often get in the way of creativity.  (Not always, but they have done so on occasion with this group.)
(3) Players have more authority over plot and even framing scenes in game.  I know this is the kicker and a somewhat complex goal, so I'll get back to it in a second.
(4) Game is set in a very well fleshed out setting, e.g. Eberron or Blue Planet.  I love rich settings.  The others in my group do too. 

My basic plan is to use an established setting with more "indie" mechanics.  One of the real problems I'm facing in figuring out which ruleset to use is the tension between (3) and (4).  I want to be able to run something where there's a big world out there that the players can't fully control.  I don't want the players to be able to change certain basic things in the world just by narrating it so if the dice go their way on a couple rolls (changing through action and extended play is a different story).  But I do want the players to have more freedom with their descriptions of things and scenes in the world.  And I'd maybe like the players to be able to determine the direction the world takes at certain key times through independent narration (maybe somewhat akin to winning players' descriptions at the end of a phase in Burning Empires).  Really, I'm trying to figure out a way to use a rich setting with some hardwired politics/power structures/NPCs with plans, etc. while giving the players as much rope as possible to describe and change the world.  You know, balance.

I've read a bunch of different indie-esque rulesets, but I haven't played nearly as many as I've read.  I have limited experience with Wushu and octaNe, and I read about half of Universalis before I realized it wasn't for me.  I've read Burning Empires, but I have yet to implement the rules in a real game.

Any advice is much appreciated.  Thanks.

-Ben

[Ben S.]

Forgot to add one more detail:

I'm also looking for some kind of ruleset that will encourage some character conflict over how the story unfolds, or at least how the group reacts to various situations.  I'm on the fence about needing a mechanic to resolve this tension, and I'm way open to hearing advantages and disadvantages of this general approach.

[Jasper Flick]

Huh, "balance", what's that? Seriously though, it appears your main issue is about authority. It sounds like you want to give the players more authority than assumed by, say, D&D but you want to stay in control of the plot and most of the content. Am I reading you right? If so you might have an easier time than you think, because D&D-like players tend to shy away from exactly the kind of authority you want to keep; at least that's my experience.
I'm not sure how far you want to go, but if it's just a little step you could start with "baseline D&D" except say "when you succeed at something, you tell me how it happened" and that's it. For some that is already a giant leap.

Is this experiment something you're going to throw at them or is it with their consent? I wouldn't push things too far or at all without checking whether they are actually interested in such a change. As always, communication is key.

[Ben S.]

Jasper, thanks for the response.  For the issue of consent, we're expressly making time to try new stuff.  This is going to be one of the experiments I bring in for at least a few sessions.  If it goes beyond that, great.  If not, that's fine too.  I'm not sure how the group will respond, and I'm not sure how I'll respond.  But the consent is there to try new things.

As for the issue of authority, you're right that this is key.  But I don't think I can achieve the 4 goals I listed up top using D&D.  I actually tried doing some system mods to D&D to make the combat faster, more brutal, and more cinematic, but the results weren't everything I wanted.  I'm also looking to have a game where players do get more control over content and plot, but in a structured way so that this authority doesn't negate the backstory of a rich setting.  D&D doesn't provide me with any way to negotiate this issue.  One of the main problems I have is that I'm not sure exactly how much authority players should have and the array of different ways that are out there to negotiate this balance - I'm really not sure about the exact effect I want.  That's why I'm here - to think about different possibilities for shaping this balance.

One area where I've thought about this issue a lot is knowledge-based skills.  On one hand, I love it when players have these skills because it allows them to get more deeply involved with the setting and make more complex decisions (e.g. they have knowledge of political ramifications of a proposed action).  On the other hand, I also want to give players more authority to bring new content into the game, and knowledge checks are potentially good ways to do this too.  Is there anything out there that gracefully negotiates these sorts of considerations?

[Glendower]

Anyway, I want to start a game that includes the following characteristics and try it as an experiment (you know, see how the group reacts, and really, how I react):

(1) More cinematic action/combat than, say, even the lite D20 system in mutants and masterminds
(2) Very low crunch level.  I don't have time to prep much in advance (e.g. no statting out NPCs), and I feel that really well specified rules often get in the way of creativity.  (Not always, but they have done so on occasion with this group.)
(3) Players have more authority over plot and even framing scenes in game.  I know this is the kicker and a somewhat complex goal, so I'll get back to it in a second.
(4) Game is set in a very well fleshed out setting, e.g. Eberron or Blue Planet.  I love rich settings.  The others in my group do too. 

My basic plan is to use an established setting with more "indie" mechanics. 

Well, I've always thought that playing Primetime Adventures in one of these established worlds would be pretty neat.  I've always daydreamed about a TV series set in somewhere like the Forgotten Realms, or even the Shadowrun Universe, which was done over here.  That system is really low prep, and low crunch, and you can insert any setting you can imagine on a TV screen!

Capes is another game that you can adapt to other settings (other than superhero).  I used it for Forgotten Realms, which went really well, and I wrote up an Actual Play over here.  Capes also has no GM, which gives players equal power to create facts in game.  Though it may be more freedom than people are comfortable with.  The rules system does take a little time to learn as well.  I don't know if it's complicated, but you do need to play it a few times to get the hang of it. 

And of course, the ever fun Fate system is neat for using in all kinds of settings. 

Hope these help! 

[Simon C]

Man, I really envy the position you're in.  It sounds like you've got a really clear idea of what you want from a game, and agroup that supports that agenda.  In the end, only you can say what will work for you.  I'll suggest a few systems, and you can tell me if they work for you.

The Shadow of Yesterday has got me really jazzed at the moment.  It's got a pretty low-crunch system, with a few tactical options, and a great way of bringing the focus in on what's important to the characters.  The stand-out parts of this game are the Keys, which are the best way of encouraging playing to character I've ever seen (all carrot, no stick), and "Bringing Down the Pain", which is such a novel concept, it blew me away.  It's got a setting that comes with it, but you could also use it with many published settings with no work, and with any published setting with a bit of work.  It gives the players some limited control over narration, but keeps the "big stuff" in the hands of the GM.

Donjon would be an interesting choice.  This would lead to a pretty flat-out high-adventure game, with lots of action.  It gives the players a lot of control over the story, but I think as GM you'd still be able to keep the reigns to some extent.  The key thing here would be every player knowing and being invested in the setting.  Without that, it could get a bit messy.  Donjon lets players state facts about successes .  So, if you roll a successful "listen" check, you get to say what you hear.  If you roll a successful "tracking" roll, you get to say what it is that made the tracks.  If you make a successful "sense motive" roll, it's up to you if they're lying or not.  I believe that Burning Wheel uses the same concept to some extent? Donjon is meant to emulate a fantasy dungeon-bash, but there's no reason you couldn't use it for any other setting or genre.

The great thing about the above games is that you can check them out for free online, then buy them if they take your fancy.

If you want a totally different experience, you could try "The Pool", an incredibly low-crunch system that nonetheless feels like it has everything it needs.  I'm not sure what a long-term game would be like with this, but I played a two-session game, and we got lots of high-action adventure, with lots of scope for the players to narrate their victories, and shape the game.  The key to The Pool is learning to frame conflicts right.  It's tricky, and I think I only got the hang of it towards the end of my second game.  The key is to a) Break conflicts down into small parts, b) Keep the stakes high - keep pushing conflicts the players can't ignore, and c) Make sure that both outcomes of every roll are interesting and keep the game moving.  My game stalled a few times when I forgot this..

The Pool is free! Check it out!

I think you're dead on not wanting to tweak d20.  Life's too short.  Good luck, and embrace this great opportunity.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

Let's recall what this forum is for. Ben, I'm likin' the stuff you're saying and I think that you're going to find a lot of what you're looking for here. But what you can really do to meet your goals is to post more about actual play experiences you've had that will illustrate your points. Experience shows that it pays off in a big way.

Best, Ron