[FF Legacy] An RPG, yet to be realised.

[Eric J.]

Disclaimer: FF does NOT mean or indicate, imply directly or indirectly, Final Fantasy.  There is no subtle invited assumption that it does or does not.  Nope.  None.  And since there isn't any, there is also no reason to move this thread to RPG theory.  It fould mean Folger's-Fu or flower frolicking.  It could just represent the highest two digit number, 255, to be represented in hexidecimal.

So:  I decided to possibly scrap my D20 idea for Legacy, the full linear campaign I'm designing for my friends or possibly publish in the future.  I eventually figured that I could create my own system and it would be easier than to enlessly modify D20 to my own stance.

I've explained my FF fundamentals in earlier threads and I felt that I could create a better combat system with a new mechanic I thought up (Which I'm sure has been used before).

Here goes:  Each character has different dice for their-
Attack
Damage
Parry

As in, it ranges from D4 to D12.  The number is also indicitive to your character.  However, you can use combat tactics to shift the number of dice.

Example:

Attack(D6)-3
Damage(D8)-2
Parry(D6)-3

Armor would act as damage reduction.
I'm leaning towards a HP system.


In combat you can make a 'fierce attack' which would lower your attack dice by 1 and raise your damage dice by 1.

This is IMHO a more fluid system than D20, and would make it easier to create special combat techniques for each character.

This is mostly concerned with a combat system, but I'm also planning on having a detailed technique system too.  I'm thinking level progression and maybe a seperate ability system that goes along with it.

So... here's my question: I've been thinking about instituting an attribute system.  I'm not sure what those are called in RPGs.  An ability score system.  This would basically be a controlled variable that would help to differenciate characters on a psychological level and give them more numbers to increase.

They also might be able to give me more freedom with abilities.

So what do you think?  I'm okay if it resembles a fantasy heartbreaker.  I'm not sure what those are, actually.  I felt that Heartbreakers are games that are trying to be a bigger better D&D but falls to the same basic design flaws.  I'm pretty much okay with that.  It's a very story based campaign, and the system and everything there is pretty much just for illusionism's sake anyway.

That's just my take though.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal

[Ben Lehman]

Mmmm... FF...

I'd love to see an expansion on "Fully linear campaign"

I have dealt a *lot* with VRPG and CRPG inspired TRPG games, both in my own design, play of other games, and other people's designs.  I think that your primary focus should be the following:  It needs to stand on its own as a TRPG design, rather than an emulation of a VRPG.  VRPG systems are, by nature of the platform, more complicated than good TRPGs.

That said:  This looks pretty combat oriented?  Are you planning on having any system for out-of-combat skills (My character is a thief, and so he climbs on walls) or is that going to be "systemless" color?  How about equipment?  Initiative?

[Eric J.]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9513

There is the former thread.

I have dealt a *lot* with VRPG and CRPG inspired TRPG games, both in my own design, play of other games, and other people's designs. I think that your primary focus should be the following: It needs to stand on its own as a TRPG design, rather than an emulation of a VRPG. VRPG systems are, by nature of the platform, more complicated than good TRPGs.

I've come to the EXACT same conclusion.  The gameplay is intrensicly different so what reason is there to emulate the system itself?  

That said: This looks pretty combat oriented? Are you planning on having any system for out-of-combat skills (My character is a thief, and so he climbs on walls) or is that going to be "systemless" color? How about equipment? Initiative?

I'm thinking either through systemless color or the technique system.  This is because, in a linear campaign, you have situations where specific characters will become important based upon their ability... but why go through all the effort of creating a skills system to protagonise characters that are usefull in different plot ways in the first place?

That's not a very good way of making my point so I'll retreat to an example:

The characters are stuck in a jail cell without any equipment.  Their goal is to escape, etc.  Now, one could have a set of skills that all the players have and each would roll their skill (skills are the traditional form of what I think you to described).  The first character to roll high enough would exist the cell.  However, since each scenerio is pre-planned there is no point relying on the system for that... The thief will have the ability to get them out of the cell and will have no chance at being deprotagonised because the glamerous knight rolled higher than him.

The ultimate point is that there is little reason to give players powers that can overcome the situations anyway.  If I want them to fight their way out of a situation, I don't want them noticing a ventilation shaft and escaping from the whole complex if an important plot device is inside of it.

Now, you seemed interested by what I meant by linear.

As the thread says: I did a few things that go against most roleplaying philosophies:  I created their characters for them and I have way too much GM control.

I battle this the same way that Final Fantasy games do it (Coincidence I tell you!), illusionism.  No one cares that they have little control over their characters personalities if they have a couple dialoge choices here and there, they have a system of customisation, and a navigtable world map.

I know Ron hates illusionism, but I think that it has some purposes.

Here is basically my idea: I'm going to have a pre-crafted story that I will tell with the Players playing their characters (even if I create the basic character motivations).  If I have a good enough social contract, it will work.  The only time they should deviate from the planned story is if their motivations don't match up with their characters'.  I'm hoping I can avoid this, but I'm sure conflict is innevitable.

I think that combat is very important because it fills a basic human need: power.  It gives the characters to affect the environment in very direct ways that encourage protagonism but it doesn't let them build an airship and fly it into the sun to spite the GM.

I am still trying to give characters control over the game with the technique system.  Each character has a different set of techniques and can customise their abilities to a fairly significant degree.

Enos: He can bind demons.  They also allow him to take on some of his demons' abilities as permanent charicteristics.
Jahan: He's a bard that can play the 13 magical songs of the world.  He can customise his skills to use different instruments.  This allows for a complex framework of abilities because certain songs are better played with different instruments.
Nyx:He has the ability to have different combat and stealth abilities which he can combine.
Nabil: Nabil has different schools of holy powers that he can choose to specialise in.
Achan:He's of the planet's greatest mechanics and has the ability to create custom weapons, armor, scanners, etc.  I'm hoping to have a good enough mechanic to support this.
Ten: Ten has the ability to summon and I'm sure I can do something cool with that.

So there you go.  I'm hoping that initiative can be settled with a basic mechanic (roll a d20).  Equipment will be very much like it usually is in a Final Fantasy game (coincidence!!!) in that it is used as a reward and also can be customised to add to the illusionism.

Disclaimer: Any refferences to 'Final Fantasy' in the linked article are hereby changed to '[a] Computer Roleplaying game that is very much to the likeness of Final Fantasy'.

[Ben O'Neal]

question: if you don't want characters making 'skill rolls' (or whatever your system uses) to get out of jail because it undermines their protagonism, then why do they make attack rolls in combat? surely getting killed is more of an anti-protagonist event than having the 'glamourous knight' beat you at something you want to be good at. the later provides incentive, the former... well, there really aren't many more powerful disincentives than dying.

also, if a thief doesn't make rolls to do their thing, why would you need a system mechanic for dealing with your great mechanic master doing his thing? why can a thief break out of any prison in the world without worry yet your fantastic mechanic can't make a huge photon torpedo launcher?

also, of your six character's listed, five are male, and the last one is undescribed... but i'm willing to bet with a name like "Ten", it isn't a girl. i have no problem with this if it suits your world fine (maybe it's set in a culture like ancient greece where women had to stay in their homes, or maybe all the women are the superior ruling class, and would never lower themselves to mingle with the "adventurers" except for the purposes of propogation of the species), but perhaps you might want to include some female characters.

as a side note, i admit that i've not read everything ever posted on this forum, so please forgive my ignorance, but what the hell are CRPG's, TRPG's, and VRPG's. i've figured out the "RPG" part, it's the first letter of the acronyms i can't decipher...

[Eric J.]

Good questions, and I feel that I've thought about all of them.

as a side note, i admit that i've not read everything ever posted on this forum, so please forgive my ignorance, but what the hell are CRPG's, TRPG's, and VRPG's. i've figured out the "RPG" part, it's the first letter of the acronyms i can't decipher...

Tabletop, video(game), and computer I believe.

question: if you don't want characters making 'skill rolls' (or whatever your system uses) to get out of jail because it undermines their protagonism, then why do they make attack rolls in combat? surely getting killed is more of an anti-protagonist event than having the 'glamourous knight' beat you at something you want to be good at. the later provides incentive, the former... well, there really aren't many more powerful disincentives than dying.

Because 'skill rolls' give characters too much power over story.  It allows them to say, climb over some mountains or swim a lake which goes against the linear structure.  When you get knocked out in combat, just that happens, you get knocked out.  You'd be supprised about the dying.  Protagonising usually has a lot do to with your character concept.  Most characters are adventurers and by definition, live a very perilous life.  Dying can be less deprotagonising than failing at a conceptually related ability.

also, if a thief doesn't make rolls to do their thing, why would you need a system mechanic for dealing with your great mechanic master doing his thing? why can a thief break out of any prison in the world without worry yet your fantastic mechanic can't make a huge photon torpedo launcher?

Because A) The mechanic won't allow for it and
B) Because the world lacks the technology to do it.  It will mostly just be a technique system that allows the character to combine different items in different ways to create stuff.  If he spends enough points in his craft:scopes (or whatever) he will be able to attach any scopes he finds to the different weapons he makes.  This still makes his abilities limited (and therefore balanced) but gives him the freedom to develop his character how he would want.

also, of your six character's listed, five are male, and the last one is undescribed... but i'm willing to bet with a name like "Ten", it isn't a girl. i have no problem with this if it suits your world fine (maybe it's set in a culture like ancient greece where women had to stay in their homes, or maybe all the women are the superior ruling class, and would never lower themselves to mingle with the "adventurers" except for the purposes of propogation of the species), but perhaps you might want to include some female characters.

Ah, but I will include female characters, but just not PCs unless I have a female player who expresses interest.  I've had girls game with me but it has usually been my 8 year old sister or this other girl who actually decided to make a male character.  The one other time I designed characters for my players, I had one of them as a female Jedi and it didn't destroy anything... but it just didn't work.

But yeah... I'm working on an attribute system but I'm kinda stuck.  You see, I think I explained the combat system in the first post.  I'm thinking of just having an attribute modify all rolls that go under it but that seems to simple.

Attrbutes from +0 to +10:

Each of 6 attrubites go from a +0 to a +10 and modify rolls.  My only problem is that they don't help distinguish a character like the 'ol D&D attribute system does...

Maybe a 5-30 system with incrimental steps.  Kindof like D20.  My excuse for the incrimental steps could be that you have to spend 1 fate point each...

Hm...  Anyone else have a different take?

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal

[Ben O'Neal]

But yeah... I'm working on an attribute system but I'm kinda stuck. You see, I think I explained the combat system in the first post. I'm thinking of just having an attribute modify all rolls that go under it but that seems to simple.

what's wrong with simple? if it works, does everything you need, and is fun, simple is the best IMHO.

why use five attributes and skills to make a single attack, rolling 25 die, re-rolling every "10", adding up everything higher than 8, then comparing your score of 117 against your opponent's score of 98 plus their armor which is 25, then looking at a table to determine how you hit them and how they blocked and what sound it all made, when you can roll 1 dice, add one number, and compare that to your opponents armor, dealing the difference as damage? some people might prefer the former, but i prefer the later (NB: both examples are extremities).

My only problem is that they don't help distinguish a character like the 'ol D&D attribute system does...

how so? if the attributes are ALL that characters have, then yeah, not too distinctive. but if you've got other things, and i think you do, then you can make everyone as distinctive or bland as you want.

[Eric J.]

The basic mechanic really is simple:  It's just a variable dicepool.  I don't konw what the official name for that is.

The attributes would probably just be a modifier.  It would help distinguish the charcters because it would rate some stronger than others, others better with machines... etc.  I could probably function without them but... eh...

Here's an idea:  Atributes are on a scale of like 6-30 and they determine prerequisites for techniques and having certain scores can give you bonuses.  This would fufill all of my requirements

BTW- I'm planning on releasing this as a (probably free) contained campaign on the internet this fall (After my group playtests it).  It would be a unique concept as far as I know.  You have 6-8 characters, your own system, and your own campaign important source material in a (probably free) downloadable PDF.  It's like a (probably free) premade adventure that takes lots of sessions.


Input about attribute system?  Any questions about the world?  I have some pretty deep themes going on here and I can only reveal too much but I'm pretty open to questions to anyone interested.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal

[gabby2600]

Because 'skill rolls' give characters too much power over story.  It allows them to say, climb over some mountains or swim a lake which goes against the linear structure.  When you get knocked out in combat, just that happens, you get knocked out.  You'd be supprised about the dying.  Protagonising usually has a lot do to with your character concept.  Most characters are adventurers and by definition, live a very perilous life.  Dying can be less deprotagonising than failing at a conceptually related ability.

So essentially what your saying here is you want to take the role-playing out of RPG's and reduce them down to nothing more than Choose your own adventure games. Wher you have to follow the plot you cannot devate form it, and your given a list of choices.

Now to do what your taking about with a game, please tell me your aiming this at new players who have never role-played before, or your makeing the game for children.

Also please tell me your a good storyteller, because the story would have to be international bestseller material for me to keep any form of interest, in a game like yours.

I'm not saying it's bad but it will have limited appeal and not go down well in the current comunity, however Steve Jackson started out doing things similar. So who knows you could be the next SJ.




I always thought role-playing was evloving.

[Eric J.]

=)

I'm glad to see that someone likes my idea.

So essentially what your saying here is you want to take the role-playing out of RPG's and reduce them down to nothing more than Choose your own adventure games. Wher you have to follow the plot you cannot devate form it, and your given a list of choices.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  They can deeply influence the story.  They are simply bound to 1 specific journey.

Now to do what your taking about with a game, please tell me your aiming this at new players who have never role-played before, or your makeing the game for children.

"Adults are just obsolete children."-Dr. Seusse

Also please tell me your a good storyteller, because the story would have to be international bestseller material for me to keep any form of interest, in a game like yours.

Maybe I'll publish it when I'm done.  I'm going to have each roleplayer record their thoughts about the game afterwards and use it for inspiration.

As for the story itself.  It's the story of one man whose aim is to end human suffering by... and a boys aim to understand what the difference is between a demon and a human.

I'm not saying it's bad but it will have limited appeal and not go down well in the current comunity, however Steve Jackson started out doing things similar. So who knows you could be the next SJ.




I always thought role-playing was evloving.

My very thoughts on spelling.

;)  Sorry.  I really do appreciate the input.  If you would, share your thoughts on the final fantasy series itself (or computer or video RPGs) and how they relate to roleplaying.

In the meentime, I'm still searching for an ability score system.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Mike Holmes]

I think what Gabby may be saying, Eric, is that the computer versions of the game already do what you're suggesting far better than a tabletop RPG could possibly. A lot of what you're taking out of the game in terms of "railroading" the journey, is precisely the advantage of the tabletop format. You've got two media here, and you seem to be using the inferior one.

IOW, I have FF on my machine at home. Why would I want to play a slower version? If you put the limitations of the one medium on the other, then you get the problems of both, and none of the advantages.

Mike

[Eric J.]

You've got two media here, and you seem to be using the inferior one.

Railroading isn't neccicarilly inferior.  It can be used to create a more coherent world, allow for better gameplay, and tell a better story.  It has some obvious drawbacks, yes, but I would like to see what can be accomplished by this style of gameplay...

I understand that and while it may be a linear story, they can have influence on the plot and it's consequences.  It's more like they have a predetermined stream of sub-objectives, I.E. get to the next town find out stuff on this one guy...

However I think that the advantiges of P&P is underestimated.  Here are a few that I'm using:

Cost effective.  I do not have to learn C++ and do not have to register the program to create this.

System: System gives you more power over your character and makes your character that much more intimate with the game.

Actual game: It's always going to be more fun, for me, to play a good P&P RPG.  Every moment is there FOR the player rather than for the game.  There isn't any wandering around looking for the one thing they didn't do to advance the plot.  There is player input into the game through in-game and metagame goals.  There's a better reward system.

Your last comment I, personally, dissagree with.  There are a lot of problems with FF games that I'm escaping with this.  A P&P wouldn't, by any means, have to be a slower version just because the computer calculates things for you.  Look at FFX.  The entire game is a movie sequence with battles between (pretty much).  

So my question is: If they could convert D&D and make something out of it (Final Fantasy), why can't I convert Final Fantasy and make something out of it?


May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Ben O'Neal]

Railroading isn't neccicarilly inferior. It can be used to create a more coherent world, allow for better gameplay, and tell a better story. It has some obvious drawbacks, yes, but I would like to see what can be accomplished by this style of gameplay...

i have no doubt that you have come up with a strong and complex storyline that you are proud of, and you want to share it with other people in a kind of "multiplayer" fashion, but as to what can be accomplished through this style of gameplay, i think you'll find the answer is: not very much. computer games can get away with this because they are historically linear, and this is understood as necessary to avoid the overwhelming task of creating a program that can generate plot "on the fly". tabletop RPGs have a totally different history, and so players do not expect or want to be railroaded any more than players of a computer game want to be stuck somewhere wondering what the hell they are supposed to do, only to find that there is no answer.

by its very definition, a linear plot removes player control. in computer games like FF7,8,9,X/whatever, the ONLY choices any player can make is what items they are going to pick up/buy and how they are going to win a combat scenario. if they die, they must do it again. if they can't die, what is the point of playing at all? what happens when players die in FF Legacy?

So my question is: If they could convert D&D and make something out of it (Final Fantasy), why can't I convert Final Fantasy and make something out of it?

i didn't design Final Fantasy, so i could be wrong, but i'd put money on a bet that they didn't convert D&D.

also, i'm willing to bet that if they had the money/time/technology, Square would DEFINATELY make Final Fantasy non-linear. in fact, i'd bet that they'd most likely use some sort of plot tree similar to the character progression grid in FFX in order to have a huge variety in what could be achieved as an endgame and the paths taken to reach them.

my suggestion, and you can take this with a grain of salt, would be to take everything that you like about FF, and create the mechanics necessary to enable these things, then work on adjusting them to allow players to create their own FFesque storylines as they play. things that i would highly recommend would be some sort of Final Fantasyish character progression system (materia, grids, or whatever), have the mandatory mini-game that can be used to further develop characters (chocobo breeding/racing, cards, blitz-ball), and insane weaponry with unique and multiple effects.

at the very least, i think if you really want to use your storyline (which i suspect that you do), then create an entire storyline of what will happen WITHOUT player input. then when you play, factor in player input and adjust the story around their actions. this gives both character freedom and protagonism, and the sense of a "realistic" world that doesn't depend on the players to exist. but i'd definately steer clear of railroading if you want any sort of constructive feedback here.

[Eric J.]

i have no doubt that you have come up with a strong and complex storyline that you are proud of, and you want to share it with other people in a kind of "multiplayer" fashion, but as to what can be accomplished through this style of gameplay, i think you'll find the answer is: not very much. computer games can get away with this because they are historically linear, and this is understood as necessary to avoid the overwhelming task of creating a program that can generate plot "on the fly". tabletop RPGs have a totally different history, and so players do not expect or want to be railroaded any more than players of a computer game want to be stuck somewhere wondering what the hell they are supposed to do, only to find that there is no answer.

If it's just a set of history and expectations, I've got that covered.  Each of my players is ready to get involved with this, or at least has led me to believe that.

by its very definition, a linear plot removes player control. in computer games like FF7,8,9,X/whatever, the ONLY choices any player can make is what items they are going to pick up/buy and how they are going to win a combat scenario. if they die, they must do it again. if they can't die, what is the point of playing at all? what happens when players die in FF Legacy?

You don't.  If you fail in a task, there will always be another way.  It will involve some... other type of railroading. I.E. NPC to save the day or a strategic retreat.

i didn't design Final Fantasy, so i could be wrong, but i'd put money on a bet that they didn't convert D&D.

Convert is too strong a word... but if you look at the early final fantasy games they are very much like D&D dumbed down for the Nintendo.  Random battles, classes, seperated into towns and fighting in dungeons... all very D&Dish.

my suggestion, and you can take this with a grain of salt, would be to take everything that you like about FF, and create the mechanics necessary to enable these things, then work on adjusting them to allow players to create their own FFesque storylines as they play. things that i would highly recommend would be some sort of Final Fantasyish character progression system (materia, grids, or whatever), have the mandatory mini-game that can be used to further develop characters (chocobo breeding/racing, cards, blitz-ball), and insane weaponry with unique and multiple effects.

It's an interesting and worthy idea, but I can't scrap my own in favor of it.  I could really deal with some ffesque sim play.  

But as for the game concept, itself, it seems like a worthy enough idea to at least try it once.  If it flops then well there went 5 months of my life.  Oh well.

BTW- Thanks for the input

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron