[PoD] gamism meets narritivism - you can still kill stuff ;)

[Joe J Prince]

Hi all

Well talk about serendipity, I've literally just finished writing up the first playable version of my RPG and had no idea what to do with it until I stumbled upon this wonderful site!

My endeavour is titled Shadow of The Prince of Darkness
or PoD for short. See? This game needs to be print on demand.

Anyway, the original idea was to create a balanced fantasy RPG/CCG hybrid. However the CCG aspect has since fallen by the wayside.

So essentially what I'm left with is a classical style gamist RPG.

Warning - this game does have a strong leaning toward combat.
Don't despair - this is tempered, by some powerful narrative mechanics. In fact there is a quick n dirty freeform mechanic that can be employed if the GM so desires.

There are six distinct combat styles, ensuring that even in the inevitable party of fighters there will be a great deal of variation between characters (statistically as well as psychologically). Also magic users can kick just as much ass as the fighter types, none of this namby pamby wizard crap.

Flair points (fate points) are awarded for cool stuff and good role-playing.
Characters only develop if they engage in the game plot.

I think this game can provide a middle ground between traditional RPGs and the more innovative narrative oriented indie-RPGs.

I would really appreciate some feedback and advice on my game, I'm afraid it's only available as a MS word document or rtf doc (about 3MB), but it should display with wordpad or explorer.  

It does feature original artwork!

If you would like a copy remove the (nopythonrefs) and email me at:
shadowofpod(nopythonrefs)@hotmail.com

The current version is mainly just the rules, I do have a quite elaborate background worked out, but I need to type it up properly and do some decent maps. Plus I don't want to force people into a specific fantasy world.

Cheers

Joe

Peas? Owt.

[xenopulse]

If you upload it somewhere and post a link, I may be able to check it out. That's usually much easier and will yield more responses than requiring people to email you :)

[Bankuei]

Hi Joe,

Your Plot and Sub-plot rules are similar to Sorcerer's Kickers, that is, they are conflicts introduced by the players as the focus of their character's story, and also the means by which character advancement happens.  These can be very effective reward mechanics for Narrativist play, BUT...

Looking through the GM's advice section, you advocate that the GM should write up a Scenario goal and design Plot Encounters, which would seem to be aiming for predestined outcomes/events in play, which pretty much negates a good deal of the players' ability to address premise.  Though you don't give advice for GMs to railroad these outcomes, there's also no advice on how to use them flexibly AND focus on the player plot goals.

Plot goals can provide additional useful ideas to the GM: adventure hooks, interesting NPCs and scenarios. Even a tenuous link to a plot goal can greatly improve a scenario.

The GM should strive to provide the PCs with ample opportunities to pursue their plot goals.
Ultimately, each PC should have the chance to fulfil their plot goal during the campaign.

This would seem to indicate that Plot Goals are "extra" or secondary to whatever the GM's adventure is, in which case, the sort of play wouldn't be Narrativism at all, but Simulationism(which is fine, as long as you know the difference...).  You may wish to check out Primetime Adventures, Dust Devils, or Primetime Adventures for examples of games that really hit solid advice for Narrativist GM play.

I'll take a look deeper into the game tonight, and will share any thoughts as far as Gamist play later.

Chris

[Joe J Prince]

Thanks Chris for your time and advice.

I must confess I have not actually read Sorcerer yet, its top of my list after I run a My Life with Master campaign.

I get what you mean on the GMs section though and think there are a few problems there.

The framing idea, which obviously needs to be expressed better, is that the scenario goal will express a potential reward for ALL players, a reason to work together, opposed by each individual's selfish notion to pursue their own plotlines, which can offer the same level of reward.

As for player's ability to influence their storyline, you're right there does need to be some mechanic to allow for that I feel. Perhaps spending a flair point for a fortune check, which will allow a plot or sub-plot lead to be created by the player?

Maybe plot encounters are the problem, they do seem a bit deterministic. Any ideas on how scenarios might be structured without 'plot' encounters?
Maybe a few select  NPCs and power relations would do the trick?

I guess I do want the game to still feel simulationist - as a player I feel cheated by several game worlds and don't want to inflict that on anyone else - that said it was probably the GM's fault ;)

Thanks again for the feedback

Joe

PS I now have a pdf version available if  anyone wants one (1.5 MB).  
PPS Thanks for not mocking my narritivist typo - fricking 60 mins edit time :)[/i][/quote]

[Bankuei]

Hi Joe,

It would probably do you well to read a couple other games take on the idea.  Sorcerer and Riddle of Steel do not explicitly give players any extra scene framing power, but it is clear that the GM is supposed to frame conflict and scenes based on Kickers and Spiritual Attributes, which players create much in the same way you create Plots and Subplots.  

In order to keep things from going crazy, the key point is to have some way of focusing play.  In Dogs in the Vineyard, its easy- everyone is a Dog, travelling together.  In My Life with Master, everyone is a minion.  Aside from these heavy handed approaches, games like Primetime Adventures encourage the group to define the focus before play begins, thereby giving everyone a chance to input.

I guess I do want the game to still feel simulationist - as a player I feel cheated by several game worlds and don't want to inflict that on anyone else - that said it was probably the GM's fault ;)

I'm not sure I follow you.  I'm not sure what you mean by this?  

Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Joe,

After getting a chance to read deeper into your game, I think you might be confused about what the terminology(as far as Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist) means.  

If you have a strong vision of what the game should be about, then design around that and don't worry about the what category that falls into as far as theory is concerned.  If you don't have a strong vision, then you should get that cleared up first, which also may require some playtesting to do so.

As it stands now, your game has seeds that could push it any direction.  Right now, the biggest determiners of what you get are based on the advice given to players on how to play the game, GMs on how to present conflict, and resolve it, and reward mechanics.

Chris

*Useful asides for clarity, if you happen to already be aware of these, good, if not and you want to discuss them, I suggest reading some of Ron's articles and digesting for a while, then opening a new thread.

Gamism does not equal combat.  Gamism is built on challenge and competition, which may be peaceful(such as the many European boardgames that are popular now) or it may be violent.  You could also have combat heavy Sim(most Whitewolf) or Nar(Riddle of Steel) play, so combat alone doesn't equal gamist play.

Narrativism does not equal "players narrating more stuff".  Narrativism also does not equal, "A story happens"(any series of events could be considered a story, so a chess game, properly embellished would also be a story...)  Narrativism only happens when a Premise is addressed through play by the group as whole.  Who narrates, or how colorful they do so, means nothing.  You can have narration trading and colorful description in Gamist play(Donjon) or Sim play(octaNe).

Simulationist does not equal rules.  Simulationism means a focus on the Explorative Elements(system, setting, character, color, situation) as the point of play.  You could have "freeform" Sim play, as much as you could have rules heavy Gamist(D&D) or Nar(Riddle of Steel) play.

[Joe J Prince]

Thanks Chris

Your feedback has been very helpful and given me plenty of food for thought.
I think I am going to re-examine my basic premise and look more carefully at the GM and player roles.

I didn't really want to get too bogged down with GNS, I just thought I'd drop in the lingo to generate interest.
Which kinda worked :-)

What I meant with the sim comment was that -  it's a frustrating experience when internal logic and causality within a game world go out the window, as the game world's credibility is shattered, even if this is part of the game's supposed premise.

That's even less clear ah well.

Cheers
Joe

Look for a revised version of PoD soon...

[Bankuei]

Hi Joe,

What I meant with the sim comment was that - it's a frustrating experience when internal logic and causality within a game world go out the window, as the game world's credibility is shattered, even if this is part of the game's supposed premise.

Well, actually, all three types of games can support an internal logic(to Setting, I assume) or abandon it, depending on the nature of the entire game.  

Overall, I'd say take some time with your game, playtest it a bit, fiddle around, and when you have a stronger direction with it, bring it back for folks to check out.  Dropping lingo may have gotten some interest, but that's not necessarily a good way of doing so(and kinda manipulative, if you ask me).  Once you get a clearer picture on what you want your game to do, with or without using the terminology, then we can help you in terms of tweaking it or suggesting possible ideas.

Chris