Creating Phantasia - A game that helps you do the world building.

[MacLeod]

My apologies for making a silly assumption. @_@ I just sort of saw that in your earlier text and figured that was what you were referring to... never realized a game actually existed called The Pool.

After reading the document... I can see where you could make that interesting. Could you please explain exactly how the reverse of The Pool would work? I think I may be too much of gamist to accept the rules as they are now but I still would like to learn.

I wonder if the Story and the Traits could work better in a different way... Perhaps save room by writing the story/description as if it was composed of the Traits already. At the end of a Trait, it would simply be (T~#). Instead of a word limitation, make it 6 Traits. Filler between Traits is allowed. One trait is rated at 3, two are at 2 and three are at 1.

I'm not convinced that The Pool mechanic couldn't utilized difficulty modifiers. 0 is standard, +1 is easy, -1 to hard, etc... It would replace the "GM hands you 1 ~ 3 dice" part with something that actually makes consistent sense.
I know you are pretty adamant against adding any sort of complexity so I'm expecting a full-fledged response of negativity. ^_~

[jp_miller]

Here are a few significant differences with my version and The Pool:

- I have some solid precepts about each players roles (inspired by the 3 precepts in The Window). Most importantly, the players responsibility to play their character in an interesting way story wise (as opposed to playing their character to win all challenged they face).

- Traits with unassigned dice can be used, using dice from your Pool, to affect the story. If you don't have a trait listed it is much harder to interject and ask for a roll.

- Players do MOV's as well as monologues of failure.

- Any roll of a 1 and you succeed, take a MOV, and loose all the dice in your pool.

- If you do not roll a 1, take a Monologue of Failure, and add a dice to your Pool.

- Other players can donate any number a dice, any time, with a brief explanation of how their character aids in the story. Of course if the player wins a roll than any donated dice are lost.

I'm not convinced that The Pool mechanic couldn't utilized difficulty modifiers. 0 is standard, +1 is easy, -1 to hard, etc... It would replace the "GM hands you 1 ~ 3 dice" part with something that actually makes consistent sense.

- I'm totally anti this idea! In my variant there are absolutely no modifiers - the GM never gives any dice.

- Cost of bonuses to Traits for advancement is much cheaper.

- I have different rules regarding death.

So that's a few of the big changes.

[MacLeod]

I see. So you gain dice by failing but lose them succeeding. Any particular reason for this choice?
This means that the reliance on Traits will be increased a bit... I assume that a Trait's rank still adds free dice. In any event, you have that covered by making upgrades cheaper.
Non-Trait actions will actually become automatic failures at a certain point if you don't have any dice to throw. Or, do you plan on allowing a bare minimum of 1 for each action?
Wait, you lose ALL of your dice when you succeed? Not just the ones you used? Hm?

One thing I want to point, its not very important but it bugs me... The Window claims Traits and Skills are rated using adjectives instead of numbers... yet, each adjective has a rank that relates to a particular die. Feels like I'm still rating things based on numbers. So, phooey on that game. =3

[jp_miller]

I see. So you gain dice by failing but lose them succeeding. Any particular reason for this choice?

The idea first came from Mike Holmes. From the old Pool site:

"Mike's intent was to add stability and avoid spiraling, crashing Pools that had no positive effects. In his words: What if you lost dice when you succeeded instead? And gained a die when you failed. A simple but radical change, what would the effects be? Well, firstly players would be encouraged to use as few dice as they thought necessary to accomplish the task, leading to more failures as players gamble with just how many dice might work. In fact they might frequently use little or no dice and accept failures just to get the extra dice when low. In cases of extreme need like a climactic battle they could still just unload on the contest. This would all work to keep the currency of protagonism in the player's control."

So for me the reverse Pool has a lot more positive effects on role playing, thrashing around at the bottom is less a problem, players are more empowered in having choice over their destiny, and in my added rule of players helping others with donations, the giving of dice only really works in reverse pool as given dice will almost certainly be lost.

This means that the reliance on Traits will be increased a bit... I assume that a Trait's rank still adds free dice. In any event, you have that covered by making upgrades cheaper.

Yes, yes, and yes. You got it.

Non-Trait actions will actually become automatic failures at a certain point if you don't have any dice to throw

Well yes, but non Trait actions shouldn't really happen. A player can't call for rolls in ridiculous circumstances that mean auto failure, nor should GM's ask for them.

Wait, you lose ALL of your dice when you succeed? Not just the ones you used? Hm?

No, no. I mean only the ones you gambled, as per Pool rules.

One thing I want to point, its not very important but it bugs me... The Window claims Traits and Skills are rated using adjectives instead of numbers... yet, each adjective has a rank that relates to a particular die. Feels like I'm still rating things based on numbers. So, phooey on that game. =3

Yeah, I've heard that gripe before. It's getting a bit old now but The Window was very revolutionary for its time. It still has a lot of good points. For example, you mention one of the precepts, what about the others? How many games begin with solid rules about how players should play; 'A story is the central goal', and 'It is the players responsibility to play their role realistically'. Before I played the Window I thought RPG's were only about winning (as opposed to telling a story) and leveling up and maxing my characters stats (as opposed to being realistic).

[MacLeod]

The Reverse Pool sounds good. =) I think my reaction to the problem of auto-failures is that I keep thinking in a very small scale. I think The Pool is meant to cover larger scale, at least it seems that way.

Since players can share dice, it would be nifty if it was just one big pool that everyone pulled from. Without permission, of course. That would promote team work. =D You could (but won't) have a game mechanic where different kinds of dice get deposited in there. Obviously bigger dice would be warrant a high difficulty.

You mentioned that the GM has no dice... And I gather from The Pool that he doesn't roll anything anyways... This means the difficult of any given challenge is strictly based on the player's dice management and Trait creation strategy. Do you feel that this is a positive thing?

Do you have anything specific or detailed you'd like to say about the scenario building aspect of the game? I'm not the sort to drop out of a discussion until I've sated my curiosity.

In reply to your bit about The Window...
I've never actually heard anyone but you and one other guy mention The Window before. I thought it was some sort of secret relic that no one else knew about. =) I just hate the way they make that first precept sound so smug.
I agree that it has a different focus than many other RPGs. I also think that all different styles of play have their place in the world. Sometimes I want something that leans in a particular direction, sometimes I want the very opposite.

[jp_miller]

Since players can share dice, it would be nifty if it was just one big pool that everyone pulled from.

Hmm... That's pretty interesting. It would certainly be a great idea in a game set in communist Russia! I'll have a think about that one.

You mentioned that the GM has no dice... And I gather from The Pool that he doesn't roll anything anyways... This means the difficult of any given challenge is strictly based on the player's dice management and Trait creation strategy. Do you feel that this is a positive thing?

It's more about what's important to the player/character rather than difficult levels. As you know by the Pool rules, a roll can be much broader than an action. I personally, as a GM, would never ask for roll if a character wanted to jump somewhere.

The traits are tools by which the player can control the story – thus Traits with high Bonuses give the player the ability to experience the kind of story they want. And even if they wish to fail they still can use a trait with a small bonus and no dice from their Pool.

I also would mention in the rules a pretty important point, in my opinion, about what exactly failing means. A failed roll may not necessarily mean the character did not accomplish his goal but rather that the goal was accomplished but with dire consequences. This is a very neat perspective especially when it comes to investigation type scenarios. You need the characters to get clues otherwise the story may stagnate. So instead of making failed rolls mean they failed at obtaining clues, it may mean they got the clues but they bumbled in the process, lost precious time, and now the bad guys are hot on their heels.

So now as you see, rolls can mean more than a simple success or failure. I find the GM input of his own dice a little wishy washy and pointless really. It slows the game down and has no great benefit to the storytelling.

Do you have anything specific or detailed you'd like to say about the scenario building aspect of the game?

Do you have anything specific or detailed you'd like to ask about the scenario building aspect of the game?

Based on the feedback I think I might indeed have something rather original (unless readers can tell me otherwise) and worth pursuing. I think now I will knock up a rough draft or two for palytesting and see how it runs.

This game will be rather easy and quick to learn and play so if anyone is interested in playtesting, please PM me or post here. It might not be ready for another 12 months but I would certainly love a list of gamers I could send some material to for playtesting and/or critique.

[MacLeod]

Well, hey... Sign me up. =) I'm always willing to try something new as relates to RPGs (unless it is diceless)!

[JoyWriter]

I like the journal as scene framing idea, that's pretty tight! In fact given that you include monologues of failure you barely need any GM at all! Just someone to set up the scenes as you enter them, before anyone has actually done any actions, and then have everything happen in terms of character success and failure. The original framer could step in when stuff starts to slow down, and possibly adjudicate the occasional monologue conflict, but apart from that, he could just get on with playing his character. Nice!

As far as the squares go, I have one suggestion to make things hopefully more interesting: Add comparisons of each square to the last, of to all the mentioned squares around it, so if it is colder, or more agrarian, or richer, or more colourful, put that in the description. How many travel/journey programs say something like "and from the golden fields of __ we moved on to the red hills of __, and little bicycles started to appear, " or something else, noting the contrasts of travel and how they coincide. In addition this insures that you think of the setting in context, with all the areas around it. This will likely change the events that occur because of consideration in the various GM's minds, rather than via explicit demand.

Finally, I do think there could be grounds for the GM offering dice, but only from a pool of gift dice that he gets each game, for example when he particularly wants a player to succeed, but that would be a more activist GM, if you want one. You could also make conditional offers "you get this dice, if you add this to your monologue" etc. There's a whole metagame mechanic in there I'm sure..

[jp_miller]

I like the journal as scene framing idea, that's pretty tight! In fact given that you include monologues of failure you barely need any GM at all! Just someone to set up the scenes as you enter them, before anyone has actually done any actions, and then have everything happen in terms of character success and failure. The original framer could step in when stuff starts to slow down, and possibly adjudicate the occasional monologue conflict, but apart from that, he could just get on with playing his character. Nice!

Hey, that's an interesting idea. I was however thinking that the journal entry would just be the beginning of a short story, a series of scenes, not just one scene. I'll think about it more but at the moment I'm pretty dedicated to more GM power. I like those GM's who put a lot of effort into their stories, I like the complexity that comes from that and find it more depper and rewarding than constant ad lib play.

As far as the squares go, I have one suggestion to make things hopefully more interesting: Add comparisons of each square to the last, of to all the mentioned squares around it, so if it is colder, or more agrarian, or richer, or more colourful, put that in the description. How many travel/journey programs say something like "and from the golden fields of __ we moved on to the red hills of __, and little bicycles started to appear, " or something else, noting the contrasts of travel and how they coincide. In addition this insures that you think of the setting in context, with all the areas around it. This will likely change the events that occur because of consideration in the various GM's minds, rather than via explicit demand.

As part of the rules I intend to add some basic tips on geography and climate. The players will automatically show what kind of climate/geography it is in their domain by the use of a map key. So, coniferous forests look like this, tropical forests look like this, this is the symbol for swamp, desert, mountains etc. Their will be some basic rules on where you can put what - for a little realism - but I'm not going to get to pedantic about it.

I think this is what you mean?

Finally, I do think there could be grounds for the GM offering dice, but only from a pool of gift dice that he gets each game, for example when he particularly wants a player to succeed, but that would be a more activist GM, if you want one. You could also make conditional offers "you get this dice, if you add this to your monologue" etc. There's a whole metagame mechanic in there I'm sure..

Interesting, I'm still tinkering with the system and thinking of adding and subtracting bits here and there so it's great to get some input. I'm currently scouring the Pool forum and other similar games forums for ideas. So thanks for the idea.

The GM could have his own pool, the same number of dice the players start with, and dish them out under specific reasons? I don't really like the idea of the GM having power over the monologue but his dice could be incorporated another way. Interesting...

[jp_miller]

But hey all, let's talk about the other part of the equation!

So, if we could ignore the system for a while. Imagine using the world building aspect for any system. They really are two separate things. Although I will integrate the world building tightly to the system in my game, doesn't mean you have to.

Imagine the game you are playing right now and adding my world building idea.

This is not really about world building, it's about creating a visual map of your gaming experience, taking it in turns in narrating (which is not collaborative storytelling), so that all players can experience playing other players stories, as well as creating their own - and having some rules and visuals to govern how it all works.   

To re-iterate;

- You have a blank piece of paper with a grid on it. (say 23 x 16 squares, each a half inch in size)
- Each player takes it turns being the GM.
- The GM takes 9 squares in any shape he desires, a Domain (at least one square must adjoin a previous domain).
- He draws some basic geography on a large scale e.g. a mountain range, a river etc. and names it e.g. The Winding River, The Misty Mountains. This is the name of the Domain.
- He then draws a location e.g. Mount Aslij, Bartertown etc. This is where a scenario takes place.
- he then writes a brief scenario that is occurring in that location. The scenario must involve an immediate conflict for the characters.
- He then GM's a short scenario until it is played out.
- The next player becomes the GM and can either create a new Domain or revisit an existing Domain of his own.
- GM's may never play another GM's Domain, nor change the facts of another GM's domain.
- GM's may use the facts of another players Domain in their own stories providing it does not change the other GM's Domain.

How would this work in your game you are currently playing? Could it be a fun addition?