What sort of play will this engine create?

[Devin P. Owens]

This is the core of an experimental engine I am working on to drive a modern-day magic game exploring issues of personal desire and responsibility.  I would like to solicit opinions on what it might do in play.  There are enough mechanics that the interactions between them all get sort of complex, so I would like to submit it for a once over before I start soliciting people for playtesting.  There are some neat frills that I'm omitting for now; this is supposed to be the bare, beating heart that should drive play forward, so I want to focus in on this first.

• Everyone at the table is a player, and has a major character that they create.
  
  


• There are points, and all the players want them, because the points can be used like experience points to improve their character's stats.
  

This is where the system departs from regularly scheduled reality.

• Players can spend a point to make a prediction about some event that will happen in play.  They write it down on a piece of paper and put it face down on a pile on the table.  If the prediction comes true, and it wasn't the most recent prediction made (we can't have things be too easy!) the player who made it flips it and gets rewarded for their foresight with a bunch of points.
  
  


• If there isn't currently a GM, players can bid points to take over the GM's job.  Whoever is willing to fork out the most points gets a special pool of GM Points and becomes the GM as long as they have any points in that special pool left.  A few narrative powers require them to use a point from their pool, like making new characters, so the pool will naturally deplete over time.  Additionally, if any player's predictions come true while a GM is 'in office', the reward points that go to the player who made the correct prediction come out of the reigning GM's special pool.  The GM doesn't know what predictions have been made, so there's a strong incentive for the GM to narrate in directions that the players don't anticipate.
  
  


• Meanwhile, the GM gets a point out of thin air to keep for his own permanent personal pool every time one of the players uses magic, so there's a powerful incentive for the GM to set up situations where that seems likely.  This is especially important because the player can't make predictions while GMing, and if a prior prediction of their's comes true the bonus points the player would have gotten only go into their pool of GMing points.
  
  


• To use magic  (there's a magic system that governs what sorts of effects characters can work, but it's tangential to this core engine), players deduct points from a special pool, much like the GM's pool of GM points.  They can refill their pool of magic use points anytime for free, but when they do everybody else at the table gets to scribble down something that they think would be an interesting side effect.  The player refilling his pool has to pick one or more of these to become real.  The more complex and potent the magic used since the player's last refill, the more options the player has to select.  This is intended to create a moderate disincentive against using magic, while simultaneously giving players an extra tool for bringing about the things they've predicted.
  
  


• Finally, a lot of the foregoing rules hand out lots of narrative power. Players might try to collect on predictions that seem lame or like they haven't come true.  The reigning GM might try to do something that strikes the rest of the players as being distastefully out of genre in an effort to dodge everyone's predictions.  Players might try to do odd things with magic, or interpret the magic guidelines a little too loosely for another player's tastes.  In any situation where a player does something that someone or several someones take exception to, they can raise a challenge.  In a challenge, players take points and bid them in a sort of auction.  If the challenger(s) win, they get a sort of veto; the right to rule or narrate the issue differently.  GMs have the privilege of getting to use GM Pool points to bid in challenges, but challenges are still very expensive for everyone involved, so they'll only be used if someone really thinks that something is important.
  
  

Thar she blows!  Fire away, me mateys!

[Vulpinoid]

One of my regular groups of gamers simply enjoys sitting around throwing their characters a

[Vulpinoid]

Sorry, don't know what happened there...

One of my regular groups simply enjoys sitting around and throwing their characters against the puzzles, antagonists and storyline elements I generate for them on a week-by-week basis.

I've asked for one of the other members to have a go at GMing for a stretch because I've occasionally gotten sick of being the enetertainer for this group week-in and week-out. The only thing that this has ever resulted in is a stretch where no-one runs any games and then I ge asked by a few of the members to "Please start running games again..."

I'm wondering how this sort of game would run with a permanent GM, because this particular gaming group simply wouldn't want the role of GM even though many of the members like having short periods in the limelight where they are able to narrate the events.

This group enjoys playing things like "Mage" where the magic is very freeform and allows virtually any possibility (within reason), and enjoys the potential storyline elements that paradox inflicts in that system. In fact this is what first came to mind when reading your ideas.

I realise that plenty of people around here are of the opinion that "not all games are suitable for all groups", and that's a valid point, but I'd be interested to see how a game premise like this did work for the group of players I'm describing. It could be a beautiful train-wreck, or it could shock some potentially good GMs out of the comfort zone and into the hot seat.

V

[Ken]

Hi Devin-

The thing I like most about the Forge is how designers try to break molds set by mainstream rpgs and let role-playing concepts drive their play. Personally, I like when rpg mechanics are wrapped around the core ideas of a game setting; it tends to make a game less universal, but omni-setting games usually do not cover all genres equally well. Also, systems that provide growth and not just combat or task resolution are a plus in my book, and that seems like a common goal amongst Forge members. Liked what you had, and I have some questions/comments:

This is the core of an experimental engine I am working on to drive a modern-day magic game exploring issues of personal desire and responsibility. 

Great goal! I know that you've omitted some stuff, but could you draw a line between your game mechanics and character desire/responsibility. What elements of your core system support character exploration?

Players can spend a point to make a prediction about some event that will happen in play.  They write it down on a piece of paper and put it face down on a pile on the table.  If the prediction comes true, and it wasn't the most recent prediction made (we can't have things be too easy!) the player who made it flips it and gets rewarded for their foresight with a bunch of points.

Do you have guidelines on what a valid prediction would be? Are they predicting things that their character will do, or trying to show that they can see through the GM's plot? What would be some example predictions? Are the rewards based on the relevance and accuracy of the prediction?

Looking at it from the other side; are character predictions more valuable to your game goals then say paying points to insert "predictions" that the GM has to sew into the plot? I think player investment is an awesome tool for group coherency and team ownership. Unless seeing the future is a major staple of your game or narrative style, I'm curious what this tool adds to the game (other than an opportunity to score points).

If there isn't currently a GM, players can bid points to take over the GM's job.  Whoever is willing to fork out the most points gets a special pool of GM Points and becomes the GM as long as they have any points in that special pool left.  A few narrative powers require them to use a point from their pool, like making new characters, so the pool will naturally deplete over time.  Additionally, if any player's predictions come true while a GM is 'in office', the reward points that go to the player who made the correct prediction come out of the reigning GM's special pool.  The GM doesn't know what predictions have been made, so there's a strong incentive for the GM to narrate in directions that the players don't anticipate.

Meanwhile, the GM gets a point out of thin air to keep for his own permanent personal pool every time one of the players uses magic, so there's a powerful incentive for the GM to set up situations where that seems likely.  This is especially important because the player can't make predictions while GMing, and if a prior prediction of their's comes true the bonus points the player would have gotten only go into their pool of GMing points.

I think that GM-less games are neat, but clearly you have a GM's chair at your gaming table here; why not just have a traditional GM/player mechanic? There are ways to promote player narration, while still supporting game continuity. Or, have a true round-table game where the GM hat gets passed around the table and the GM-of-the-day is guided by plot elements (or predictions) provided by the players [this sounds pretty close to what you were describing already]..

To use magic  (there's a magic system that governs what sorts of effects characters can work, but it's tangential to this core engine), players deduct points from a special pool, much like the GM's pool of GM points.  They can refill their pool of magic use points anytime for free, but when they do everybody else at the table gets to scribble down something that they think would be an interesting side effect.  The player refilling his pool has to pick one or more of these to become real.  The more complex and potent the magic used since the player's last refill, the more options the player has to select.  This is intended to create a moderate disincentive against using magic, while simultaneously giving players an extra tool for bringing about the things they've predicted.

This is very cool. Incentives/disincentives are a great way to drive your themes, and allowing the other players to create plot complications for other players is great way to spice things up, without the GM having to cover every base.

Finally, a lot of the foregoing rules hand out lots of narrative power. Players might try to collect on predictions that seem lame or like they haven't come true.  The reigning GM might try to do something that strikes the rest of the players as being distastefully out of genre in an effort to dodge everyone's predictions.  Players might try to do odd things with magic, or interpret the magic guidelines a little too loosely for another player's tastes.  In any situation where a player does something that someone or several someones take exception to, they can raise a challenge.  In a challenge, players take points and bid them in a sort of auction.  If the challenger(s) win, they get a sort of veto; the right to rule or narrate the issue differently.  GMs have the privilege of getting to use GM Pool points to bid in challenges, but challenges are still very expensive for everyone involved, so they'll only be used if someone really thinks that something is important.

While I agree that evenly distributed narrative control can allow for conflict,  inserting a system where players openly challenge each other because of differences in opinion & taste may not be the best way to solve the situation. Instead of trying to block another players actions, maybe players can be given incentives to add onto or steer someone else's narration. This covers two bases: group moderation and group play.

Great stuff; looking forward to reading more.

Take care,

Ken

[Devin P. Owens]

Vulpinoid- you've hit the nail on the head.  This also speaks to Ken's question about why have GM power shift around the table.  Sometimes I like to GM, sometimes I like a break.  It can be exhausting to always run for a group when you'd really like a chance to play.  Alternately, I've been in situations where games don't happen because nobody can commit to GMing one.  This is an attempt to create a game that works great in situations like those, and that works to prevent things like GM burnout.

One of the mechanics I omitted is that personal points can only be spent on improving stats while a player is in the GM's role.  That would give everyone a strong incentive to try their hand at it now and then, and I think that would be a good thing for many groups.  For those who are timid about GMing, having an explicit rewards system guiding what they should be trying to do might make the GM's role more approachable.

The game is indeed heavily inspired by Mage.  The style of play I'm aiming towards is something much like The Dresden Files, and I could see groups taking it and doing things like Charmed or Buffy, or like Neil Gaiman's Sandman, American Gods, or Neverwhere.  It might even work for a group of immortal Fae trying to out-scheme one another to bring about the fall of humanity, or a game about the ghosts of a group of friends who died together in a car crash trying to set the lives of their loved ones right again.

Ken, to answer your other excellent questions-

The predictions (I call them prophesies) act in part as invested expressions of desire, what the players want to see happen.  Responsibility is handled by special declarations that can be created by expending a few points.  I call them destinies, and they're inspired by Keys in TSOY.  At any time a player can pick some aspect of their character, be it a relationship, a limitation, a quest; anything the player wants to zoom in on and explore in detail.  From then on, whenever that destiny makes the character's life difficult in some way, the character gets a few points.  But it gets even better: whenever the player accepts a magical side effect that interacts with the destiny to make life difficult, they not only get a few points but so does the player who wrote the side effect.

I'm curious what you think that that will do.

The only limitation on predictions (prophesies) is that they must not be lame.  Lameness is a hard thing to define, but an easy thing to convey. "I am going to glance at my watch and clear my throat."  That's boring.  "John's girlfriend is going to become terrified of him."  That's more interesting.  It isn't necessarily readily brought about, it tells part of a story, and it leaves lots of options open for how and why John's girlfriend might become terrified.  Maybe the player writing the prophesy is going to see to it that she stumbles in on John doing something overtly supernatural, and thinks that the girlfriend's most likely reaction is going to be totally freaking out.  No matter what happens, the consequences are bound to be interesting and bring up possibilities for further interesting situations.  It's much as though everyone was playing a game of Sorcerer where the players all get rewarded for writing bangs for the other players.  It's also in some ways reminiscent of that system in Wraith where players got to control the dark side of each other's subconsciousnesses. 

To sum up, predictions are supposed to do three things: drive story, keep players personally invested and interested in what happens in the game, and keep the GM focused on setting up interesting situations and not engaging in illusionism; prophecies make creating a plot the players' job and reward them for it.  At least, that's how I'm hoping they'll work out.  In part I'm asking whether that's what Forge-ites think is what will happen.

So that brings us to the question of who decides when a prophesy is lame or not.  I don't want to just hand that power to whomever the current GM is, since prophecies are supposed to check GM power and it wouldn't work if the GM could selectively nullify them.  At the same time we can't expect everyone at the table to have the same ideas about what constitutes lameness, so what we need is some system that allows everyone at the table to arrive at a collective understanding of what prophesies are and aren't awesome, and then enforces it. 

Challenges are intended to let a group come to that collective understanding.  I see them happening a few times early in play as players get a feel for what makes for neat prophecies and what doesn't, becoming less frequently invoked over time as the collective understanding takes shape in each player's mind.  The challenge mechanic will always be there if something causes the understanding to shift and need re-settling.  All that said, I could see challenges becoming a source of group conflict if they wind up taken personally, which wouldn't be good at all.  Maybe someone here can think of a particular suggestion that would more elegantly replace them.

It's worth noting that challenges also apply to GM actions, uses of magic; just about everything.  That lets the mechanic do double duty as a mechanical way to solve social contract issues, eg. "I don't think I'm really OK with being mind controlled by the leader of the cultists, and I'm willing to spend a lot of points resisting you on it if I have to." or "I don't think I'm comfortable with sex scenes, I'd like to black curtain this." and also as an expression of consensus color and genre control: "I'm sorry, I really don't think a spaceship fits into our gritty game about fighting an insidious clan of Succubi."  or: "No, his name is definitely not Gandalf."

Thoughts?  Fire away!

[Ken]

Sometimes I like to GM, sometimes I like a break.  It can be exhausting to always run for a group when you'd really like a chance to play.  Alternately, I've been in situations where games don't happen because nobody can commit to GMing one.  This is an attempt to create a game that works great in situations like those, and that works to prevent things like GM burnout.

One of the mechanics I omitted is that personal points can only be spent on improving stats while a player is in the GM's role.  That would give everyone a strong incentive to try their hand at it now and then, and I think that would be a good thing for many groups.  For those who are timid about GMing, having an explicit rewards system guiding what they should be trying to do might make the GM's role more approachable.

Yeah, I've been there too. Being GM can be exhausting and normally turns into being not just the person who runs the game, but social event coordinator too. I've been in plenty of games where, over time, players warm up to the idea of running a session and soon you have 100%  group involvement. I've also known a number of players who really did not want to GM, and others who I really didn't want to GM. I think your GMing incentive could turn into punishment for those who just don't have the GM bug.

This doesn't mean change the system, but it does mean that someone will be driven away from playing this game because they are not prepared for the demands it makes on them. This is OK, a game can be true to itself and not please everyone; all games target an audience, whether its by theme, genre, or rules complexity. Games choose their players as much a players choose a game; lazy players (not just those who don't want to GM, but also those who don't want to add anything to the story and are just waited for their chance to hit something) will not have fun playing this game, and you may not have wanted them anyway.

The predictions (I call them prophesies) act in part as invested expressions of desire, what the players want to see happen.  Responsibility is handled by special declarations that can be created by expending a few points.  I call them destinies, and they're inspired by Keys in TSOY.  At any time a player can pick some aspect of their character, be it a relationship, a limitation, a quest; anything the player wants to zoom in on and explore in detail.  From then on, whenever that destiny makes the character's life difficult in some way, the character gets a few points.  But it gets even better: whenever the player accepts a magical side effect that interacts with the destiny to make life difficult, they not only get a few points but so does the player who wrote the side effect.

I'm curious what you think that that will do.

I've read this a few times and don't get it. I'm not sure what TSOY is. Could you clarify, and maybe give an example of play?

To sum up, predictions are supposed to do three things: drive story, keep players personally invested and interested in what happens in the game, and keep the GM focused on setting up interesting situations and not engaging in illusionism; prophecies make creating a plot the players' job and reward them for it.  At least, that's how I'm hoping they'll work out.  In part I'm asking whether that's what Forge-ites think is what will happen.

While I'm all for getting each player involved in creating and perpetuating the story, I think this mechanic will have players more focused on trying to bring about their prophecy to get points than anything else. As the session starts to wind down, I could see those who haven't brought about their prophecy doing nothing but trying to bring it about and get the reward; this could get heavy-handed and strip possibly strip the fun out of the session.

I agree that there needs to be guidelines for writing prophecies that convey what is appropriate; you don't want to get to the end of the session to find out that the goal you've working for is lame and that you're not getting points. Also, guidelines could help avoid players solely trying to bring about their prophecy. This is a good idea that needs to be shaped more.

Challenges are intended to let a group come to that collective understanding.  I see them happening a few times early in play as players get a feel for what makes for neat prophecies and what doesn't, becoming less frequently invoked over time as the collective understanding takes shape in each player's mind.  The challenge mechanic will always be there if something causes the understanding to shift and need re-settling.  All that said, I could see challenges becoming a source of group conflict if they wind up taken personally, which wouldn't be good at all.  Maybe someone here can think of a particular suggestion that would more elegantly replace them.

It's worth noting that challenges also apply to GM actions, uses of magic; just about everything.  That lets the mechanic do double duty as a mechanical way to solve social contract issues, eg. "I don't think I'm really OK with being mind controlled by the leader of the cultists, and I'm willing to spend a lot of points resisting you on it if I have to." or "I don't think I'm comfortable with sex scenes, I'd like to black curtain this." and also as an expression of consensus color and genre control: "I'm sorry, I really don't think a spaceship fits into our gritty game about fighting an insidious clan of Succubi."  or: "No, his name is definitely not Gandalf."

There isn't a group that I've played with, EVER ,that would not end up fighting over this. This really doesn't mean anything more than I wouldn't play this game (I"m not being mean, I just wouldn't have fun with those mechanics, but I am probably not your target audience anyway).  Having a system where players challenge players (including the GM) is going to start to fight. When you are the GM (whether solely or on a rotation), you want to hear "Good game! That was awesome!", not "Oh, I hate molemen! I want those guys out'a here!" If you're the GM, and molemen where your whole story (and you've got nothing else), you are going to be pissed. Believe me, that session is over.

GMing is work and maybe your challenge system should steer clear of allowing players to undo the GMs efforts, especially in a setting where that guy is going to get a shot at you later when you GM. I don't think your challenge system is mean-spirited, but I think you are right at it being a possible source of group conflict. I don't know that I have a suggestion here other than omitting the challenge mechanic; setting the levels for theme, violence, silliness, and other game elements should probably be done before the campaign starts, and not after people are playing-just an opinion.

I've read some pretty insightful posts about designers who hit blocks in development and found that some of the original and favorite ideas just no longer fit in their rules and their game evolved. Some of these rules are just temporary stepping stones that get you to more elevated game mechanics, and need to be taken out once you have other game concepts that can do the trick. It sounds like you enjoy the idea of the challenge system, but are concerned that it may cause more trouble than its going to fix; you may find that its not neccessary, or not.

I hope this helps; you have some really solid stuff here.

Take care,

Ken

[Devin P. Owens]

This doesn't mean change the system, but it does mean that someone will be driven away from playing this game because they are not prepared for the demands it makes on them. This is OK, a game can be true to itself and not please everyone; all games target an audience, whether its by theme, genre, or rules complexity.

There isn't a group that I've played with, EVER ,that would not end up fighting over this. This really doesn't mean anything more than I wouldn't play this game (I"m not being mean, I just wouldn't have fun with those mechanics, but I am probably not your target audience anyway).  Having a system where players challenge players (including the GM) is going to start to fight. When you are the GM (whether solely or on a rotation), you want to hear "Good game! That was awesome!", not "Oh, I hate molemen! I want those guys out'a here!" If you're the GM, and molemen where your whole story (and you've got nothing else), you are going to be pissed. Believe me, that session is over.

I've tried to cut way down on a GM's responsibilities and focus them, such that by following the system rewards and avoiding the system disincentives a total RPG neophyte can easily do exactly what they need to do to make the game fun for the other players.  If that doesn't work out for whatever reason, the system is intended to automatically swap out the GM for a new one in under half an hour so that nobody is burdened by GMing when they aren't interested.  Even for GMs who are leveraging the system really well, I don't foresee anyone holding the role continuously for more than a few hours due to the same GM pool decrementing mechanics.  I'm beginning to suspect that I shouldn't ever use the term GM to reference GM roles that are highly limited by system; the term comes along with so many expansive notions of what a GM does traditionally that miscommunication ensues.  I'm reminded of how Prime Time Adventures has a GM with limited power who is called the Producer, maybe for this exact reason.

Your example about the molemen is an excellent one, and gives me an idea of how to clarify.  Hopefully after this you'll be able to tell me how I should have explained things to make them clear to potential players, which would be really helpful.

A traditional GM might decide that it would be really cool to have a story about molemen, so he plans out a neat plot involving the mayor being bribed to disguise a pending molemen invasion under a massive subway works project.  He's laid out a chronology of clues and events that he wants to happen and detailed a few key NPCs like the molemen king, the corrupt mayor, and the gumshoe investigator who suspects something is up.  In a game like that, when a GM is all ready to go a challenge mechanic that let one or more players reject molemen entirely or else force the GM to bid much of their time in the GM's seat to resist the challenge would really suck.  In short, the challenge mechanic totally breaks illusionism, and that's intentional.  I don't want illusionist play.

Here's how I see things working instead.  Player A wins the bid for the GM's seat.  His goal is to do things that are likely to cause the players to use magic, without being predictable enough to have his GMing pool rapidly eaten up by player prophesies.  Player A knows that Player B is good friends with the mayor, a character who's come up before.  He also knows that Player C has a thing about protecting children.  So, Player A comes up with the perfect situation to hook them both: a city police detective comes to the players for help after being fired by the mayor after trying to investigate the bizarre deaths of a group of teenagers found in the new subway project covered in strange claw marks.

Investigation and interesting complications ensue.  Player A happily collects some points for himself as the players use magic to uncover mysteries and work their way out of tight spots.  Finally, it is revealed that molemen are behind the conspiracy, and players B and C blanch, feeling that molemen belong in superhero stories, not modern magic stories. 

So (to give an example of the bidding process): Player B spends a point to start a challenge, Player A spends a point to resist, Player C tosses in another point to up the ante, Player A hesitantly tosses in a second point to resist, and Player B tosses in another point to up the challenge.  Player A decides that molemen aren't quite *that* important and wants to see what Player B has in mind, so Player A decides to stop bidding and let the challenge succeed.  Player B narrates instead that they discover a group of werewolves concealed in the old subway tunnels, once human victims of the Mayor's secretly lycanthropic father.  That answer is cool enough that nobody decides to challenge it, and so play continues and the GM works with the new situation.

Thoughts?

Games choose their players as much a players choose a game; lazy players (not just those who don't want to GM, but also those who don't want to add anything to the story and are just waited for their chance to hit something) will not have fun playing this game, and you may not have wanted them anyway.

I think the sorts of play experiences you're referring aren't so much a result of lazy players as they are a result of players who are conditioned to illusionist play, where the GM comes up with the story and it's the job of players to follow that story and not try to go outside of it.  It's important to note that there's nothing wrong with that as long as everyone is having fun.  I've just been in the position of being in groups where that sort of passivity is expected and been very unhappy with it, and so in part this game engine is designed with the hope that it might help groups who are dissatisfied with illusionist play but don't know how to play any other way.  This system will push them into playing differently at every turn, or such is my hope and intention.

While I'm all for getting each player involved in creating and perpetuating the story, I think this mechanic will have players more focused on trying to bring about their prophecy to get points than anything else. As the session starts to wind down, I could see those who haven't brought about their prophecy doing nothing but trying to bring it about and get the reward; this could get heavy-handed and strip possibly strip the fun out of the session.

This thought makes me think that I may have needed to be more specific:  Prophesies are fairly cheap, with a payoff five or more times their cost.  Players can make as many prophesies as they like, so if one isn't working out they can just throw another iron or two into the fire and work with them instead.  There's also a rule allowing a round of free prophesies every time a new GM steps up.

I've read this a few times and don't get it. I'm not sure what TSOY is. Could you clarify, and maybe give an example of play?

My apologies.  TSOY stands for The Shadow of Yesterday, an Indie game discussed here now and then.  Keys are its main reward system, where you spend some points to buy a 'Key', which is like declaring an official plot issue that your character is interested in.  Examples might be a Revenge Key against the guy who killed your family, or a Mentor Key with the kindly old warrior who took you in as an orphan and raised you.  Every time the issue involving the Key comes up in play the character gets experience on a sliding scale; the more inconvenient seeking out revenge or holding true to your relationship with your mentor is in any given situation, the more experience you get for it.  It's a neat system.

Hopefully that helps make Destinies make more sense; let me know if I need to do a better job of explaining them still.

[Ken]

I've tried to cut way down on a GM's responsibilities and focus them, such that by following the system rewards and avoiding the system disincentives a total RPG neophyte can easily do exactly what they need to do to make the game fun for the other players.  If that doesn't work out for whatever reason, the system is intended to automatically swap out the GM for a new one in under half an hour so that nobody is burdened by GMing when they aren't interested.  Even for GMs who are leveraging the system really well, I don't foresee anyone holding the role continuously for more than a few hours due to the same GM pool decrementing mechanics.  I'm beginning to suspect that I shouldn't ever use the term GM to reference GM roles that are highly limited by system; the term comes along with so many expansive notions of what a GM does traditionally that miscommunication ensues.  I'm reminded of how Prime Time Adventures has a GM with limited power who is called the Producer, maybe for this exact reason.

A system that automatically limits each player's time as GM seems pretty cool. Obviously players are going to be OK with this dynamic before they agree to play, so I guess culture shock shouldn't be a big thing. Also, I agree that maybe you need a new title for GM, since in your game they don't completely fit the classic mold. In my game I call them Editors; I agree it allows to both change the role a bit and better connect it to the theme of your game.

While I'm all for getting each player involved in creating and perpetuating the story, I think this mechanic will have players more focused on trying to bring about their prophecy to get points than anything else. As the session starts to wind down, I could see those who haven't brought about their prophecy doing nothing but trying to bring it about and get the reward; this could get heavy-handed and strip possibly strip the fun out of the session.

This thought makes me think that I may have needed to be more specific:  Prophesies are fairly cheap, with a payoff five or more times their cost.  Players can make as many prophesies as they like, so if one isn't working out they can just throw another iron or two into the fire and work with them instead.  There's also a rule allowing a round of free prophesies every time a new GM steps up.

I'm not sure that this truly fixes the concern I have. If a player makes one prophesy I believe they will spend a lot of their energy trying to make it come true to get the substantial payoff; if they've made five predictions, I think they will spend even more effort trying to get the BIG payoff! This is just my opinion. I've been in plenty of games where savvy players benefit from the rules, and it sparks an arms race between the group, with everyone trying to play the rules instead of the game in an effort to get ahead. Not all groups are created equal, but as a designer I try to build  games that will work without me (and my opinions) present, so that GMs (or whatever) may have an easier time applying their own views to the game.

My apologies.  TSOY stands for The Shadow of Yesterday, an Indie game discussed here now and then.  Keys are its main reward system, where you spend some points to buy a 'Key', which is like declaring an official plot issue that your character is interested in.  Examples might be a Revenge Key against the guy who killed your family, or a Mentor Key with the kindly old warrior who took you in as an orphan and raised you.  Every time the issue involving the Key comes up in play the character gets experience on a sliding scale; the more inconvenient seeking out revenge or holding true to your relationship with your mentor is in any given situation, the more experience you get for it.  It's a neat system.

Hopefully that helps make Destinies make more sense; let me know if I need to do a better job of explaining them still.

That is a neat idea. I like to reward players staying close to character.

Keep it up, and take care,

Ken

[BigElvis]

I think you have some very interesting aspects in this engine. But I am a bit confused about some things, it might be because you don't have some of the concepts fleshed out yet, or because I just don't understand what you mean exactly. I would really like to see a draft of the system.

The GM rotation system should work allright. I like the GM being rewarded for when the players use magic, and the fact that they (and everybody right?) use points to effect the story.

To answer your question what sort of play it will create, I would say gamist.
I am not sure that's what you want, but I see the players as competing for points to strengthen their character.

I am not sure how you want destinies/responsibilities to work. Could you give an example of play (from your system - not TSOY- and if it is the same could you still write it with your game's terms?)

In gamist games the way to play the game in a winning or very rewarding way, should be the way that you want people to play it.

It seems to me that the game could become a game of double bluffing and outsmarting your opponents in a - what does he expect me to do, I'll try to do the oppositte while setting him up for what I want him to do - sort of way. Is this a valid concern in your opinion?

If it is I think it can be solved when you embellish on the mechanics for the destinies (which I think you might want to rename to responsibilities or relationship or bonds or something - as I am not sure I see the predestine aspect in the mechanics for them) and how they interact with the point system and the engine in general. The way the system is now, I am not sure I am rewarded for caring about anything else than a cynical progression of power.

To sum up, I think you have some very nteresting points. And I also really like the theme with the modern day mages - and the side effects thing seems cool. I would really like to see a draft of the system, or examples of play incorporating the different mechanics and terms.

[Devin P. Owens]

Hi Elvis!  Thank you for the comments.  You've hit on something that interests me as a design issue.  I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and see what you think.

There's definitely no question that you could play Prophecy as a gamist.  You're out to accumulate as many points as possible, and you'll do whatever you need to do to maximize your point income and minimize your point loss.  Heck, that's what the reward systems are all about.

But here's the rub: to maximize your rewards, you need to create situations that look a lot like narrativist play, forcing players to make hard decisions that challenge their characters' beliefs.  Prophecies provoke and reward story creation, Destinies reward exploration of character and themes, and the GM is rewarded for making the difficult situations (rewarded for getting players to use magic) and for presenting hard choices. (the GM gets a large bonus if he can get a player to choose to act contrary to a Destiny) 

Even weirder, say there's a simulationist player at the table while all this is going on.  The GM is expressly being rewarded for things totally aside from things that are important to a simulationist, like controlling color and genre.  This is where one of the key reasons for the challenge mechanic comes in: it moves the enforcement of all of the issues crucial to setting exploration to the players who care about those issues enough to spend some of their currency on them. 

I think, and I say this hesitantly, that Prophecy as it stands might be able to satisfy players operating in different creative agendas simultaneously.  I would love input on specifics that anyone here foresees becoming a serious problem in play.  Some have been pointed out already, though I don't currently think that any of them are fatal.  Ultimately of course I'll just have to playtest, but all the input has been very helpful.

I'm going through the second draft at the moment, incorporating some of the newer ideas.  I'd be happy to pass it along to anyone interested.  Elvis, I'll definitely send you a copy if you're still interested.

[Satanman]

The idea is very intriguing. I think that this sort of a game would create at the least, new storytelling dynamics and possibilities from any that I've played. I've frequently played with groups of people who were all comfortable and somewhat experienced at running games, and I think if some of those players could get over their stereotypes about less Illusionism Enabled systems, as well as the initial gear shift quirks that might occur in the beginning, this system might have solved many of the problems that arose over single GM issues that broke those groups up in the end.

I do believe that the challenges mechanic would be difficult for many groups trying to make it work. You might make the award of the challenger in these situations to attempt to establish consensus between the challenged player and each player adding to the defending pool. If the challenged player bids a greater pool for control, then things still stay the way that they were first told.

I hope that might be of some use. This game is definitely something I'd like to see in action. It would be great to read more on how you might define what can be targeted by a challenge as well as the rest of the full version as you make it available.

[FredGarber]

i've been thinking about the Prophecies, and I think I can come up with that "lameness filter" that you wanted:

All Prophecies must conform to the following format :
<< Character >> will choose to << Perform an Active Verb >>
By making the prophecy about a choice, it removes random occurrances. 

But there are the following restrictions
1> No player may make a Prophecy about his own character.  This promotes group play, where in order to collect on his Prophecy, player A must use his character to make something happen for player B's character, not just act to fulfill his own Destiny.

2> All Prophecy must references a choice about a Destiny.  This will remove "John looks at his watch."

3> Prophecies cannot be negative; ie. "John chooses not to go to the store."  They also cannot reference not making a choice, ie. "John chooses to stay at home."

4> Prophecies must be unique.  If Player A says "John will choose to marry Jane,"  Player B cannot make a prophecy that says the same thing.  Note that "Jane will choose to marry John." is not the same thing, and is a legal second prophecy.  John might propose to Jane, and she might not accept the proposal.
4a> This is a departure from the rules as written, as Prophecies must not be secret, to prevent duplicatation.  However, by making them about choices (not events), GMs do not have the incentive to suddenly steer the gamespace into crazy situations to avoid paying out.
4b> It's certainly possible that a canny Player C would immediately make a prophecy that says "John will choose to dump Jane," to make sure that the GM has to pay out to someone.

5> Players should only get a certain number of Prophecies.  Players must bet a certain number of their points (from the magic pool?) on their Prophecy.  That keeps the players from making a bazillion prophecies, while allowing them to choose to invest in certain parts of the story. At some points, a player can choose to Abandon a Prophecy and reclaim half the points she has bet (The other half goes to the GM pool).  That provides a disincentive to Abandon, while still allowing players to recover from bad guesses.


What do you think?