Need feedback on my RPG concepts

[Kirk Mitchell]

Rob Muadib,

Thanks for your tips. If you would actually like me to get a web-space (I haven't any at all) it will take a little while longer to finish my ms of the game.  My parents didn't tell me not to make promises I can't keep for nothing, so I will have to withdraw my statement that I will release my ms sometime today. I have just found numerous holes that need patching and a couple of new rules I would like to impliment. I will now have to say that it will be posted as a link to a web-space WHEN IT IS READY. That meaning within a week or so, but no promises.

As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character. If that is so, I am sort of focussing on indeed a high-concept simulationist with mostly gamist combat, but a lot of the game is very character driven and based on their philosophical goals and relationships. I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

I do agree with the point of view that I must have a good understanding of what has come before me in terms of style and rules, but I am also afraid of becoming a little bit too "influenced", which I may already have been by Riddle of Steel. So I don't really know what to do. What is your suggestion?

My first idea was to publish the game, but now I am merely thinkinf of placing it on a PDF format and possibly selling it over the net. If that doesn't end up looking too appealing, then I will merely give it away for anyone who is interested. It is what I would want. If that is the case, how detailed and explanitory will the ms have to be? I am already writing it as though a person had just bought it from a store, but aside from that I don't really have a clue.

I too like detailed and robust mechanics, though have a preference for very cool combat with lots of crazy attacks and abilities (while still maintaining the simulationist mechanics). However, as opposed to that, I like the combat to be tempered by story and character based play. I want the players to know the reason for them fighting and act accordingly. I have encorporated a metagame reward system that rewards this sort of behaviour.

M.J Young,

My play organisation system is yet uncompleted, but I sort of imagined a series of scenes or skirmishes where these parties come into contact, their interests similar, or conflicting. Between sessions, the players decide what they were doing in between the scenes (as a sort of diary), and the next scene is created by the GM accordingly. A strict timeline or calendar would have to be kept to make sure there are no problems with timing or other such misunderstandings. As these events unfold, the plot of the campaign can be manipulated not only by the GM, but by the players as their characters pursue their own agendas (a very actor focussed stance). So instead of running several different play sessions at a time or at different times, a series of conflicts where all (or some) of the involved parties come into contact are engineered to keep (almost) everyone in the same play area and limit the confusion. This is my take on the situation, so please tell me what you think of it, if I answered your questions, the idea has some merit or is completely unworkable or unrealistic.

Thanks.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ignore this posting, something stuffed up with my computer.

[RobMuadib]

Thanks for your tips. If you would actually like me to get a web-space (I haven't any at all) it will take a little while longer to finish my ms of the game.  My parents didn't tell me not to make promises I can't keep for nothing, so I will have to withdraw my statement that I will release my ms sometime today. I have just found numerous holes that need patching and a couple of new rules I would like to impliment. I will now have to say that it will be posted as a link to a web-space WHEN IT IS READY. That meaning within a week or so, but no promises.

"Rik" (Sounds better than Dum for a dimunitive :))

I hope you find tips/ideas  useful, but remember they are just my particular point of view/experience/opinions/ideas. Part of the value of the Forge is the diversity of approaches and design styles present.

Hey man, it's up to you if you want to see about getting webspace or whatever. I just mentioned as an easy means for your to distribute mss./files from. It is up to you how you want to release your game. You can alway limit it to emailing your mss as an attachment, or however else you want to do it. I just mention your own webspace/website as that is what many people do, like I have a bunch of stuff about my game at http://www.wildmuse.com/games

Finally, like I said man, pace yourself. If you want to discuss a particular section or discuss idea for mechanics then do so, or just wait to drop a full mss on us, as you feel.

As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character. If that is so, I am sort of focussing on indeed a high-concept simulationist with mostly gamist combat, but a lot of the game is very character driven and based on their philosophical goals and relationships. I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

That's a good summary of the basic ideas. It sounds like your high-concept simulation will be focused on exploration of Situation primarily. Meaning that players play a Character(character element) of a particular Faction (setting element). Which defines alot of their situation. And exploring and guiding the character through those situations can be a main driver of play. Since it is highly charged and for high stakes, it will be engaging, punctuated by the Sh*t hititng the fan during the big combats.

I do agree with the point of view that I must have a good understanding of what has come before me in terms of style and rules, but I am also afraid of becoming a little bit too "influenced", which I may already have been by Riddle of Steel. So I don't really know what to do. What is your suggestion?

Well, I wouldn't worry to much about it at first, part of your design skill will be developed by imitation and inspirations from various games, especially if you are just starting to design. You may find yourself wanting to go through a few different versions of rules concepts and ways to present your setting information. I certainly have gone through several iterations and attempts in designing my game. It is much like writing fiction, you learn part of your craft by trying your hand in imitation of others. As you practice and design more, your particular vision and voice for design will emerge, and you will find yourself sure of your choices.

So go ahead and emulate elements of TROS that you find intriguing, in working with the concepts and ideas you will develop the knowledge about how best to present your concepts and an "original" design will develop from your work. So like, design, write, test, revise, polish, etc. It's a process.

My first idea was to publish the game, but now I am merely thinkinf of placing it on a PDF format and possibly selling it over the net. If that doesn't end up looking too appealing, then I will merely give it away for anyone who is interested. It is what I would want. If that is the case, how detailed and explanitory will the ms have to be? I am already writing it as though a person had just bought it from a store, but aside from that I don't really have a clue.

Well, the main point of writing for "consumption" by others is that you will have to write a complete manuscript, that is you will be essentially doing detailed technical writing. You will have to provide a complete game that doesn't skip over elements or skimp on explaining the concepts. Basically, writing it for someone who doesn't know anyhing about it. Rather than providing some design notes with a few stories and an example or two:) Here you will want to emulate commercial games in their completeness of presentation.

I too like detailed and robust mechanics, though have a preference for very cool combat with lots of crazy attacks and abilities (while still maintaining the simulationist mechanics). However, as opposed to that, I like the combat to be tempered by story and character based play. I want the players to know the reason for them fighting and act accordingly. I have encorporated a metagame reward system that rewards this sort of behaviour.

It seems like you have a good start on your "creative agenda" for the game. So with design work and playtesting, you should be able to shape the thrust of play towards your vision of the game.


Anyway, just let me repeat an old proverb "Rome wasn't built in a day." Which means be sure to pace yourself, it will take time to complete the mss, during that time you will likely have ideas for additional setting concepts, powers, mechanics, etc. Take notes about these ideas for review and possible inclusion later. And be sure to enjoy yourself. I find busting out the dice and playing out scenes and testing mechanics is part of the joy of the design process. By the same token, writing bits of setting description, color qoutes, etc. And remember your goal, the vision of your game. If you get bogged down or blocked on section of the rules, you might try working on different elements or sections. Feel free to post about ideas or mechanics or problems on which you want feedback. You will find lots of valuable suggestions and ideas from the posters here.

Best

[Mike Holmes]

The whole Creative Agenda thing can probably be tabled at this point, IMO. I'm not sure why Rob brought it up, but it's not likely to be of too much use at this point. I mean if you know about it, it can't hurt to have a goal in mind GNS-wise. But there are other more important priorities that need to be adressed first before you even have to worry about the GNS aspects, IMO.

I do agree with Rob, however, that you ought not worry about being immitative. By that I mean if you take other's work and tailor it to your goals, it'll end being original enough when all it said and done.

This part is interesting:

I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

This seems to me to be concept number three so far.

1. Dumirik/Human relations and conflicts.
2. Gamist Combat with lots of nifty maneuvers and feats.
3. Political machincaitons in a stempunk/fantasy world.

These are all individually neat ideas. The question is how to reconcile them all with each other. That is, how do you make them all work together such that one doesn't overwhelm the others. How do you make play be about all these things?

The exercise that we usually suggest at this point is that you write up an example of play with no system involved (should be called the Roy method as he first enumerated it here). That is, write up what you'd like a session to look like. IMO, all you need is an overview of the main events, and maybe a focus in on one scene. From that sort of imagining, you can start to design rules to promote the vision.

For example, most games would just do up a combat system, and perhaps have some in-game description of how the whole Dumrik possession thing goes. But they'd probably ignore the whole political machination end, leaving it for the GM to prop that part of play up. This can become difficult in play as the system informs the players that play is about the fighing alone, or problems with the Dumirik. To link these all together, some system that feeds from one to the other would be cool. Perhaps combat gives you reputation resources that you can use in the political arena.

I do think that not specifying at the outset the character's relationship to the Dumirik is problematic. That is, you seem to me to be creating three games. Interestingly, this would be exactly the same problem that In Nomine has. There's the light side, and the dark side in both these games. Players can play one or the other, or they can be a combination that works together for some reason. What this often leads to is writing that's schitzophrenic; the author is adressing three sets of concerns many times. "In an Angel game, this NPC represents a cool enemy. In a Demon game he's a potential ally." Etc.

It's cool if you can provide all three options to the players. My suggestion, however, is that you make the system work such that interactions will be accounted for by the basic system. So that the rest of the writing can be straightforward, and participants will see the elements in the appropriate light for the characters that they have created.

That's a very abstract paragraph, I realize. The point is that with an overall vision of how these things work, I think that you get a much easier to present game, and one that's more easily understood. For example, if you start with the assumption that the characters will be a mix of Dumirik and Humans, and figure out how to make that go, I think that play for groups that are only one or the other will fall into place easily. And probably have advantages in relations to the opposite side as well.

Ayhow, does that help at all?

Mike

[Valamir]

Rob Muadib,

I'm glad you like the background, I'm just not so sure about the rules. I am much better at creating stories than at writing rules,

Then why not just stick to creating the stories?  Have fun doing what you enjoy, writing about the world and characters and such.  Then just grab a system like Fudge...which is designed intentionally to be custom fit to unique settings...to use for your system.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Mr Holmes (elementry my dear Watson...),

I consider this to be two games, if you insist on calling it more than one. I feel that the relationships between Human and Dumirik are inextricably tied up with their political machinations. I view the combat to be secondary to the political intrigue, but it is often essencial to determine the outcome of various events (assassinations, murders etc.). Your idea that the combat be used to generate reputation resources for use in the political arena is nothing short of brilliance. I hade merely seen combat as an interesting and sometimes essencial way of allowing characters to confront and stop each other, and only having an influence on political actions that way, but allowing them to have others fear them for their brutality etc, etc, etc. is something that never occured to me. I must get working on a system...

As for your comment that other games would mostly make a combat system and write about the Dumirik possession (which is assumed to happen out of game when the character is created, the Dumirik waking up in the body of the dreamer), I go about an opposite route. I have focussed on the character creation system (though making sure that the combat system is robust and tactical), and whenever there is any reference to the politics of the Hub, I go into a fair amount of detail to describe their aims and background. I also consider the indistintness of the Dumirik/ Human relationships to be one of the greatest strengths of the game. As there is a Human/Dumirik coalition government, it allows the two races who hate each other, but cannot destroy each other to co-exist in the same environment. It also allows for more political and factional options. A Human could become great friends with a Dumirik, or gain a worst enemy, it all depends on their predispositions and ideologies.

I have attempted to encorporate all of these elements into the mechanics, but you can see for yourself when I post the mss later, as I would much rather submit a mostly complete ms than just tiny bits of one that make no sense ('Rome wasnt built in a day...'). Oh well, thanks very much for the feedback, it did help.

[M. J. Young]

I'm going to quibble with this, as it just struck me wrong. That no one else has already touched on it may mean that I'm just overreacting, so take it with however many grains of salt you wish.

As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character.

I think all of those are at least a bit misleading, one way or another.

Gamist is awkward because there's no real definition of "gamer point of view". After all, simulationists and narrativists are also gamers. Gamism is to some degree about showing off, maybe, about proving yourself against the game or the other players in some way, and so winning admiration by your successes, or at least your darings.

Simulationism doesn't have anything really to do with reality; it has to do with verisimilitude, perhaps, in that it is attempting to create a world, but not necessarily one like this. You could create a simulationist game set in Perelandra or Oz or Wonderland, for example. The physics of the world don't have to match ours, nor the chemistry, nor to some degree even the psychology. What matters is that there is enough consistency within the world that players can explore and discover it for its own sake. We enter Pooh Corner and meet the characters and find out what they're really like, and that's simulationism. The priority is discovery.

Story is a loaded word. Yes, narrativism is about creating story, but only in a narrow sense. It's about exploring issues, really--moral, ethical, personal issues, and so creating "stories" in which conflicts come from principles that clash with each other or with desires or with the world. I wouldn't really call that "focused on storytelling"; I tell a lot of stories that don't do that. It's a difficult thing to grasp the first time, but once you've got it you can see it fairly easily. Try Sorcerer or Legends of Alyria to give you something of the flavor of what narrativism is about; they both play that way from character creation forward.

One thing that is easily confused: just because a game has detailed mechanics for the representation of in-world physics does not mean it is a simulationist game. It's what players are going to do with that which makes a difference.

I was just explaining GNS to my fifteen-year-old (who somehow missed all the discussions I've had with his brothers). We talked a bit about what happens when you play D&D, and how everything about the game encourages you to face the conflicts in the game. D&D happens to have pretty good rules for in-world physics, but they're not the point--the point is the challenges. Then we talked about Legends of Alyria, which we've been playtesting, and how right from the beginning you're involved in an issue-based story, and how there really aren't any challenges to face or overcome--there's just story creation interaction. The game makes you tell a story; resolution helps you drive the story, not overcome the obstacles. Then we looked at Multiverser, and how the game enables you to explore. If you want, it will let you face challenges or address moral issues; but it doesn't press those directions, and you don't have to do that. You can just see what the worlds are like and watch them go by. When you get killed, you're in another world, and if you're going to survive here you're going to have to have some understanding of what's going on--so you're being pushed to explore and discover, the essence of simulationism. If you understand the world well enough, you're rewarded with survival and the opportunity to explore it in more depth. (Of course, if you fail to understand it, you're rewarded with another world to explore--but eventually it gets dull if you never understand any world well enough to do anything within it.) Multiverser has very detailed combat mecahnics; but so does D&D, albeit different in structure. It happens that Alyria does not, but narrativist games could do so (I believe that TROS has detailed mechanics and has been considered narrativist by some who have played it, but I don't have that familiarity.) It is not whether the mechanics are detailed, but what kind of decisions you're making in play.

I hope that helps you see these a bit clearer. As Mike says, you probably don't need to be too worried about these yet; but if you get them clear in the back of your mind, they'll probably help.

My play organisation system is yet uncompleted, but I sort of imagined a series of scenes or skirmishes where these parties come into contact, their interests similar, or conflicting. Between sessions, the players decide what they were doing in between the scenes (as a sort of diary), and the next scene is created by the GM accordingly. A strict timeline or calendar would have to be kept to make sure there are no problems with timing or other such misunderstandings. As these events unfold, the plot of the campaign can be manipulated not only by the GM, but by the players as their characters pursue their own agendas (a very actor focussed stance). So instead of running several different play sessions at a time or at different times, a series of conflicts where all (or some) of the involved parties come into contact are engineered to keep (almost) everyone in the same play area and limit the confusion. This is my take on the situation, so please tell me what you think of it, if I answered your questions, the idea has some merit or is completely unworkable or unrealistic.

I'd say yes, something like that could be workable. I would have a lot of questions I'd raise if this were on my desk for publication, but you're a long way from there and I'm not in that position here. I think this is probably an interesting and important aspect of the game; but I do see a potential problem. The game is likely to put player characters at odds with each other (and that's not a problem, in my view). Someone might well attempt to use the down time as a quick turnaround to launch something new against another player, while that other player writes an extended bit of respite. I think perhaps you could overcome it, for example if as play wraps up the referee announces when the next "event" occurs, so that everyone knows how much time he has before that. I also think you've probably made it necessary for there to be some communication between games, in that the referee will have to read the journals at least a day before the game to be able to prepare the next event, but that might be quite workable. What is of more concern to me is the possibility that these antagonistic player characters might become mortal enemies, and then one kill another. The problem is that this would seem to be the logical objective of at least some play, and therefore you're trapped between the unreality of always thwarting such efforts and the complications of allowing them to succeed. I can think of ways around that, but I'll let you consider the problem for now.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[Kirk Mitchell]

M.J Young,

Thanks for clearing the GNS issue up for me. I am very new to the concept (and RPG writing for that), but it now occurs to me that I might want to review my classification of the game. There is no element of gamism in my game (which I have now dubbed as The Last Bastion, or TLB). TLB focusses on narrativism in a set simulationist mechanics. Now, could you please tell me, now that I have a clear notion of these in the back of my mind: why do I need these distinctions or genres exept as just that, classifications?

I do agree that these antagonistic players might possibly use the between play journals as quick turnarounds to assault each other, but your suggestion that a specific time limit that these events can take between sessions is certainly a solution. The idea was that some communication between games would be necessary, as I believe that that keeps the group in contact and thinking along the same lines, but others might just disagree with that.

As for your comment about the players attempting to kill one another, and the unreality of constantly thwarting these efforts, or the consequences of allowing them to succeed, I have discovered an interesting background issue that deals with these problems. I have said previously that the Dumirik and Human governments formed a coalition to keep their murderous masses from slaughtering each other and subseqently annihilating each other (they require the existence of each other to survive). Thus, the coalition would have a way of making sure that these groups don't kill too many of each other (at least no the important ones), and employ such means as necessary. What do you think of this?

I would greatly appreciate you telling me those questions you would raise if this were on your desk for publication, because I am a bit of a perfectionist and appreciate any constructive criticism. Oh, and by the way, my ms is close enough to being finished that if you want to see it just e-mail me at the_guy_next_door@hotmail.com and ask for The Last Bastion manuscript, and I'll send it to you.

It certainly was helpful. Thanks.

[M. J. Young]

Thanks for clearing the GNS issue up for me....Now, could you please tell me, now that I have a clear notion of these in the back of my mind: why do I need these distinctions or genres exept as just that, classifications?

I hope I can do so adequately. I think part of that is answered in the article http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory, but that's not exactly the focus of that article (it's about how to use GNS theory to help design) so it might not come through clearly.

You've suggested that your game is going to be highly narrativist, addressing issues more than anything else. Now that you know that, you've got a filter through which to examine many of your mechanics. For example, you've got the beginnings of a combat system. Why do you have this at all? More importantly, does the combat system create the possibility of derailing the exploration of the issues?

I'm going to use Legends of Alyria as an example, but first I'm going to make a couple of comments based on D&D. In D&D, you've got systems which determine whether you hit and how much damage you do; and you've got ways to incorporate strategy into play. It's not a lot of strategy, mind, but a player can work out whether his character is in a better position fighting at range with his bow or sling, or charging into battle with his lance or sword. Different weapons have different potential, and a player chooses which weapons he will learn and use accordingly. In the more recent version, combat feats can enhance a character's potential in combat.

Now, let me point to Alyria. Player characters can still get into combat. However, the entire matter is settled by a single roll against a single roll. There is very limited strategy in the game; it amounts to using people's strengths and weaknesses against each other to alter the target numbers. Also, no character dies unless the player controlling that character wants it to happen.

That sounds crazy to most gamers. My character can't die? No, because the game isn't about surviving and beating the odds--it's about telling the story and exploring the issues.

So why do you have a combat system in your game, and does that combat system, however it works, whatever it does, enhance the storytelling aspects or create the possibility that these will be entirely derailed?

I'm not saying that narrativist games can't have combat systems and can't have the possibility that the character would be killed. I'm saying that you need to think about every aspect of your game design from the perspective of what you want your players to be doing in the game, and not from the perspective of what things everyone always includes.

Does that make sense?

As for your comment about the players attempting to kill one another, and the unreality of constantly thwarting these efforts, or the consequences of allowing them to succeed....the coalition would have a way of making sure that these groups don't kill too many of each other (at least no the important ones), and employ such means as necessary. What do you think of this?

It's a bit unclear, I think. There seems to be a cold war of sorts happening. You've got two sides who need each other but whose goals are opposed, trying to find compromises that keep both alive but prevent either from reaching their goals. I'd agree that if it's a criminal offense to actually kill each other, and that's enforced, you've probably got it reasonably under control (although not certainly so). I'm going to have to look harder at how this works to really know for certain (and today is not a good day for that).

I would greatly appreciate you telling me those questions you would raise if this were on your desk for publication....ask for The Last Bastion manuscript, and I'll send it to you.

I'll have to give that some thought, too. I've got seven worlds on my desk right now in the active file, am waiting for comments from a freelance editor on a novel that's something of a priority, and a slate of personal appearances I'm supposed to start making that are going to cut into my time, so I can only do so much pro bono work. This looks like you've got a solid idea, though, so maybe I'll give it a readthrough. Can you give me a projected word count on the manuscript? That at least will tell me how long it will take for me to read it.

Hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Kirk Mitchell]

M.J Young,

I have just been going over my previous posts and the responces on GNS that they have generated. Looking at this issue in this new light, I have to say that I don't really have a clue about what The Last Bastion is going to be, GNS wise. It has both Narrative (as in exploring moral, ethical and philosophical issues), and Simulationist (exploring this created reality of Kadath and its inhabitants) qualities. I read through your article on Applied Theory and understand your point on how it can highlight issues that one might otherwise miss, but at the moment, trying to explain my concepts in such a foreign fashion to me (I had never heard of GNS before in my life) is quite frankly, cumbersome, and rather difficult. I will leave it for when the manuscript is finished to classify what it is, but I pretty much stand by my above statement, as it describes the game as I understand it.

Your observation of my comment on the prevention of keeping the players from killing each other is rather shrewd. It is indeed a criminal offence to kill each other, and it is reasonably enforced.

Also, it was only a suggestion that you look at the manuscript and tell me what you think. I don't mean to encroach upon your personal time. When I stated that I would send the manuscript if you e-mailed a request to me, it was a general offer for anyone who wanted to take a look at it and comment. The manuscript, at its current state is 15, 981 words long. Thanks.

[Mike Holmes]

I have attempted to encorporate all of these elements into the mechanics, but you can see for yourself when I post the mss later, as I would much rather submit a mostly complete ms than just tiny bits of one that make no sense ('Rome wasnt built in a day...'). Oh well, thanks very much for the feedback, it did help.

You're welcome. I look forward to reading it.

Mike