Looking for feedback on Setting, Design and Rules of Work In Progress

[Reithan]

Penetrator is a sci-fi RPG with a foundation in the cyberpunk genre. The is meant to convey a sense of 'larger-than-life' characters in a dark, gritty, realistic sci-fi environment with realistic rules.

Details can be found at my forums at: http://forum.spiritualweakness.com within the Penetrator section forums. Please stop by and drop some comments and feedback.

Feedback, in my opinion, is really the lifeblood of a project like this. Without feedback ideas and enthusiasm become stagnant and projects eventually fail.

Thank you in advance for any comments, praise, or even criticism you leave for my project, either here, or onm y forums.

[Josh Roby]

Reithan, take a look at the thread Rules for the First Thoughts Forum.  This forum don't work without specific questions about specific aspects of your game in progress.  A pointer to your forums ain't especially kosher or useful.

[Reithan]

Sorry, guess I kind of messed up. I suppose the specific feedback I'm looking for is feedback on the setting, how well do you guys think it works/feels/accomplishes it's goals, as well as, how well do you think the rules mesh with that setting, and do you see any obvious flaws in any of the systems presented?

[Josh Roby]

Reithan, that's... still not specific. ;)

"Feedback on the setting" is way general.  "How it works to accomplish its goals" is impossible to answer until we know what the goals even are.  You get what I'm saying?

Specific is: does the wounding die mechanic on page 43 work for social wounds as well as it does to physical wounds, or does that look problematic?

[Reithan]

Ok, some of those, upon retrospect are a bit too vague still, but I did establish the goals of the general setting/design in the OP, how about just addressing that?

How well does the setting/system conform to the style goals?

Or is that still too broad?

it's harder than I though to nail down a specific question I need answered, I guess. :(

[Reithan]

I just found out about the 'Poer 19' questionaire and filled it out in the "Design" section of my forum. I could repost that here, if that would be helpful...

I've tried looking at a few other member's posts in this (and other) forums on this site and I still don't really have a great idea of how to better phrase or 'focus' my questions here. Most don't seem to be too much more focused than this one...

Either I'm missing something here, or this is a case of the 'new guy' getting ripped on. :P

[Josh Roby]

it's harder than I though to nail down a specific question I need answered, I guess. :(

It's hella difficult.

The first mistake that folks commonly make, and that I make all the damn time, is posting to get the word out and get some recognition of the work that you've done thus far.  This particular forum isn't very good for that to begin with (story-games.com, therpgsite.com, and rpg.net are much better), but in parallel to that, offering up a link that people have to click on, and in this case a link to a forum that people would have to browse through, is putting a big fat onus on them to expend a lot of effort to benefit you.  Things go a lot easier if you post direct content, either copy-pasting pertinent segments of text, or synopsizing where your interest lies.  Show us what you want comment on, rather than showing us where to find what you want comment on.  Make sense?

Secondly, identifying aspects of a roleplaying game that you want actual, real criticism on is tough.  RPGs are hugely complex things, far more complex than most people give them credit for.  For best results, this forum asks you to pick out one or two problematic points from the giant structure that you've been working on, and that's easier said than done.  I know I have probems isolating parts of my games from all of the other things that relate to them.  Talking about one piece in the context of other pieces but not talking about those other pieces is a tall order.

It's such a tall order, in fact, that I would suggest it's often not worth it.  By which I mean your game is composed of, say, one hundred discrete parts (it's probably composed of well over 100 parts).  To put that sort of effort into presenting each and every one of them here would be a total waste of your time.  The only bits and pieces I find worthwhile to post here are the highs and the lows: the parts of your game that are really really clever* and the parts that confound, frustrate, and worry you.

* Short note about posting clever things: you may be a little reluctant to post your best work, for fear of copycats and violations of your intellectual property and suchlike.  This is a very emotionally real concern, but I can assure you that in this context it's not a very real possibility.  RPGs are these huge, complex things, and individual pieces of them are almost worthless outside of that massive context.  Even if somebody took your awesome innovation and put it in their game, very few people would notice.  And the people that would notice, for that matter, are the types of people who'd buy both books anyway.

So.  This was the long and rambly way to my point: What piece of your game do you think was especially clever?  What piece of your game worries you?  I'd love to discuss either or both.

[Reithan]

Well, my 3 biggest 'clever bits' are probably my setting, damage system and statline.

Unfortunately my biggest sticky points are probably my damage system (both clever, but sticky), my skills list and my character creation system.

The problem I'm getting at here is that any ONE of those 5 areas would probably be too big a chunk to really directly post here (as per the forum rules).

I tried to get a good "synopsis" in the OP, but it's admittedly abrupt. Would posting something like a Power 19 or something here help?

[Josh Roby]

Personally, I find the Power 19 to be an excellent design tool but a crappy discussion tool.  It's great at nailing down for yourself what you want to do with your game.  When you post it for others to see, though, it's basically just a statement of intent.

Tell us about your damage system.  Don't worry about going long; it's kind of expected around here. :)

[Reithan]

I think a better question, which has just smacked me in the face:

From what I'm reading of the GNS model/theory so far (I working to read through the whole thing, as I'm serious about persuing a career in game design [both PnP & Video]), it states that between Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist, a game may not commit to satisfying all of these models.

From "The Escapist":

Gamist players like to overcome obstacles, gain power or increased options, and "win."
Narrativists like to shape their roleplaying sessions to create a good story or examine a dramatic theme.
Simulationists want their character's behavior and circumstances to follow a believable, consistent, or "realistic" logic.

For the game I'm currently working on, Penetrator, I would like to accomplish all of these goals.
I want my game to provide a realistic platform and setting for the characters to interact in (Simulationist), while I want the characters and setting, as well as the game rules to support depth and social interaction towards the goal of creating compelling stories and dramatic content (Narrativist), although most stories do involve some sort of conflict and inherently have a 'winner' and 'loser' (save pyhrric victory or mutual-win scenarios...although these are usually rare), and characters will eventual acquire fun 'toys' and 'level up' their abilities (Gamist).

With this seeming paradox in the face of the GNS model, am I setting myself up for failure?

Should I try to cut out elements of one schemata to conform more closely to the others? Should I add elements to more firmly reinforce one or two of these models? Or should I keep with my current goals, theories be damned?

[James Holloway]

Don't sweat about GNS at this point. Basically, your summary of the three Creative Agendas is not quite right -- Simulationism doesn't mean having a realistic setting, Narrativism doesn't mean social interaction and "soft" roleplay, and detailed tactical combat is not necessarily Gamist (although it's a very common Gamist feature). Instead, the three Creative Agendas are about what the players -- not the characters -- do at the table. The terms can be a little confusing, and pretty much no one fully grasps them on the first go-round. Nothing to worry about there. What's important is not what kind of a tag you're going to put on your game but how you like to play it and how other people are going to play it.

Now, it sounds to me like your game's big goal is something like "evoke the feel of gritty, dangerous adventures in a dark, cyberpunkish setting." That sounds like a Sim priority to me, but labels schmabels. So let's say you've decided "I want fights to have the kind of uncontrolled, high-intensity feel of something like Band of Brothers." Then you design your combat rules in order to create the sense of frantic action you want, for instance. Maybe you have a different goal. But the thing to do -- and Power 19 is a good way to start out there -- is to codify those goals, and then look at every piece of design in light of how well it serves or doesn't serve those goals. Those goals are rooted in play -- so think back to the times you've played your game. When you're playing, what are the moments that really get your mind racing?

I should stress that this isn't some kind of criticism you have to defend against -- a lot of people get defensive when asked "what's the cool thing about your game?" and say "well, everything!" or something equally content-less, because they assume they're being attacked. That's not what's happening here; everyone here is excited about your game and the process of designing it. So if things get a little fast-paced, just remember that.

Now, it sounds to me like you're creating a game within the traditional RPG kind of mold -- you have a GM and some players, each of whom controls a character, and these characters have some kind of motivation to have adventures or missions or whatever, or they have threats they need to protect themselves against, and so on. Is that more or less in the ballpark?

Put it another way: how do you imagine the "typical" session of your game going? What has the structure of the typical sessions you've played been like? 

[Reithan]

As to "How have previous games gone?" I can't really say because the first playtest should be commencing soon, thus the game hasn't yet been actually played.

But, to answer "How do you invision them going?", I suppose the game would fall into the typical RPG mold of "you have a GM and some players, each of whom controls a character, and these characters have some kind of motivation to have adventures or missions or whatever, or they have threats they need to protect themselves against, and so on", as you put it.

Ideally I like to play in groups (and run games) where the GM and players set up the setting and the basic themes and premise of the plot as a group, and THEN they split into GM/Players to play it out.

I'm not really sure I know how to enforce that kind of play with any hard-and-fast mechanics though, and was rather going to present it as one way to run a game in the finished rulebook. As, I'm planning to include a sort of 'tutorial' section in the book to help new players figure out how to put together and run a game, or to help more seasoned players find possibly new ways to play or different types of plots or action to explore.

As for as the Power 19 for the game goes, the 2 main goals really seem to be the "feel" of the setting and the dramatic content the players create in it.

As I evolve my understanding of the GNS model I'll probably be better able to make some sort of commentary from that standpoint, but initially it mainly seems about the 'goals' of a given game, gamer or gaming group. Such that basically a goal of "kill the monster take his stuff, hit the next level and save the princess" would be 'Gamist". A goal of "explore the dungeon, figure out who built it, spark some romance with the rescued princess and foil the plot of the vizier to plunge the city into eternal darkness" seems Narrativist and a goal like "immerse yourself in the dank, musty, cold of the tunnels beneath the city, clawing your way towards the princess's cell, inch by inch through realistic traps, monsters and other challenges" seems Simulationist.

If I'm anywhere right on that, I'm still not 100% on how it's going to help me design the game, save from maybe saving myself from wasting time on mechanics that eventually won't pan out based on overall goals of the design.

I do see, though, how it would help me to convey the goals of the design and the types of players I'd like to attract...


I believe though, that I'm a bit off topic again.

The vision of an ideal game session...well I suppose this could be broken down into steps or elements:

1. The group convenes and discusses characters they want to play (whether these would be new characters, or pre-existing ones). They'd discuss how their characters mesh, wether on a confrontational level, or on a friendly, 'team'-based level. They would discuss among themselves what types of plots, challenges and action the group feels comfortable and excited about persuing.

2. The GM would them, privately, following the guidlines set up by the group, expand on the plot until a full story or scenario was built. This could alternately be skipped if the GM feels comfortable doing this 'on the fly'.

3. The players and GM would sit down (or stand, see if I care!) and play through the story/scenario. The goal here is for the players to both feel 'immersed' in the setting and to feel 'immersed' in their characters. Emphasis during gaming would be placed on high levels of storyline-based character developement, although the system's meant to enforce high levels of verisimilitude through a believable and 'realistic' setting.

[Josh Roby]

I'm still not 100% on how it's going to help me design the game, save from maybe saving myself from wasting time on mechanics that eventually won't pan out based on overall goals of the design.

I highly suspect, Reithan, that right here and right now it's not going to help you design at all, and I strongly suggest you just set it aside for now.  Or read it in parallel, same diff.  James has got it right: what's far more important right now is figuring out, in more words than one (like "Narrativist"), what you want play of your game to look like.  Then make sure the pieces of your game make play look like your goal.

[Reithan]

I suppose that's where the playtesting (which is current in proccess) comes in, eh? :P

[James Holloway]

I suppose that's where the playtesting (which is current in proccess) comes in, eh? :P

Precisely. You've got a goal in mind, and as you write each section of the game you ground it in that envisioned session. Then you run the game and see how that works out in terms of the goal. You make notes, go back, cut stuff that didn't work, improve stuff that did, try it again, repeat, and so on. And sometimes you'll be like "man, I want some way to make it such that players who tie their characters to some problematic setting element get mechanical rewards for doing so, but I just can't figure out how," and the Forge is all over that kind of thing. It's hard to make suggestions for some kind of abstract "best system." Clear goals facilitate things.

As for me, I think the players and the GM collaboratively creating the setting is a very good idea, particularly if the rules provide an explicit process for them to do so, rather than just saying "get together and discuss." The right amount of process can help rather than hinder creativity, like a party game or a poetic form. Don't just make it some wishy-washy "if you want to, you can do it this way." Say "do it this way." People know they can do it some other way if they want to. But I love collective setting design and players having mechanical impact on the setting. If you can find the old Mayfair game Underground and its supplement Ways and Means for cheap (I got both of mine for about $5, I think), you can see a fascinating system of that kind for changing the setting in play, if not for creating it.