Graal: Arthurian Romance Questing

[Jasper]

Hello everyone,

I've been away from the Forge for a while, but now have some more free time, and a game I'd like to talk about.  A few of you may have dim memories of my past two games, Dark Nights and The West Wind.  Both were fantasy games with somewhat abstracted rules and (in the latter case) an emphasis on travel rather than on combat.  Although this is not usually how I operate, both of these games have fallen by the way side to be wholly subsumed by something else later.  My newest game, Graal, while different in some ways, is still the linear descendant of The West Wind, and incorporates many ideas from it.  (I mention this only to assure everyone that I have not totally flaked out on these previous two projects.)

Graal is basically complete -- though not necessarily finished -- and was written for a comparative literature class concerning the Grail in both medieval and modern writing.  (The class is now over, so no fears about helping me with an assignment.)  The game has been playtested once.  I'd like to get some more critical feedback on it though, from a Forge perspective, with a mind to improving it as much as possible, and making a small but polished game for free release on the web.   Okay, boring preliminary details aside, let's get to it....

The game itself can be found here in PDF format (~700k):
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jasperm/graal.pdf


I'll just give a quick run-down of how the game works for those who don't have time or inclination to read through the whole game now.  Essentially, Graal (the old French word for grail) is superficially a game about knights questing for (you guessed it) the holy grail, and to use it to heal their king and land.  Really though it's about personal development, ultimately in a spiritual sense.  There is one main character whose job it is to find wisdom, and thus prove himself worthy of the holy cup...the other characters assist him in this task.

There are two main resources that players deal with and try to gain: virtue, and narrative points.  The latter is obviously a meta-mechanic, and is used up to insert any new facts or ideas into the game.  If these facts do not benefit the group obviously and are well narrated, the GM is encouraged to give the points right back to the player.  Secondary characters get free narrative points to spend each session, but they are also awarded for acting in accordance with a character's weaknesses, and good role-playing in general (just a genero-reward).

Players normally narrate their own victories, and you can also gain narrative points by choosing to relinquish this power...I'm thinking of removing this though, as it (a) seems too easy a way to gain NPs, and (b) discourages players from narrating things themselves.  In the playtest, one of the players chose never to narrate, just so he could get more NPs.  After he had stored up enough, he came up with a great idea and narrated a huge scene to everyone.  So NPs worked well there, but in a game longer than the playtest, there are other ways to get them, and I'm not sure if this is something I want to encourage.  This is my first question then.

After narrative points comes virtue.  Everyone is trying to gain virtue.  You do this by performing virtuous deeds and sacrificing something in the process.  This sacrifice can be the risk of great danger (has to be pretty great though), or the imposition of some impediment to the attainment of the Grail.  For instance, rescuing a young maiden could result in hostilities with some local lord, who makes your journey much more difficult.  Virtue can be ?spent? to do numerous things, namely increasing skills and conversion into permanent wisdom.  Wisdom is ultimately what the main character wants, because that's what helps him to get the Grail in the end.  In a way, all this seems too convoluted ? having both virtue and wisdom I mean ? and maybe could be simplified....

The main resolution mechanics are pretty straightforward.  Every character has four aptitudes which are each broken into ?talent? and ?skill.?  Talent says how many dice you roll, skill modifies the target number to get a success.  Basic target number, and total number of successes needed, is dictated by the situation (and named by the GM).  I have no real questions here.


Those are the main rules really, I won't bother to go through any more here.  But some more general questions:

Is there enough structure to it all?  For some reason I seem to steering in this direction lately (within the last year).  There are no defined strengths or weaknesses for instances...does this leave things too up in the air?  

The main plot is also only vaguely discussed.  Should I have more specific rules for actually getting to the grail?  For gaining virtue or wisdom?  Is the direction of the game in general clear?

Are characters differentiated enough?  Beyond aptitudes, strengths, and weaknesses, there isn't much.  The game I played didn't run into significant problems of character-niche loss, but it was a very short game.  


Okay, that should start things moving, I hope.  There are certainly other issues that could be raised, but I think most deal with a potential lack of definition.  Despite the many different kinds of resources, many would still call the game ?rules lite? I think, but it's hard to say, since I already know how the game should be played in my head...the question is whether the rules communicate and facilitate that.  

Thanks for any insight.

[Edited to fix a problem caused by copying from Word.]

[anonymouse]

In case it has any impact, there is a game called 'Graal' already; Graal Online is MUD-type game, with graphics and gameplay very akin to Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.

[Jasper]

Okay, I realise that it's a huge file to read through, and although I retain hope that maybe some people are slowly doing so, I've also whipped up a "Quick Rules" version that is much smaller but still has all the mechanics and essentially describes what you do in the game.  I had wanted to do this anyway to give to my players for reference, and it's especially necessary since the original game was written for people with no knowledge of RPGs (so it's needlessly large and simplistic in its descriptions).  This new file is only about 8 pages, ~130k, and available here:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jasperm/Graal%20Quick%20Rules.pdf

I hope that makes it more accessble.

[edit] Forgot to mention: I also have some specific rules change ideas, which appear in the quick rules in italics. Comments on these would be especially welcomed. [/edit]

PS. Thanks for the tip, Michael.  I could change it so "Saint Graal" I suppose, but since it's a small-time, fore-free project, I may just not worry about it.

[simon_hibbs]

Okay, I realise that it's a huge file to read through, and although I retain hope that maybe some people are slowly doing so, I've also whipped up a "Quick Rules" version that is much smaller but still has all the mechanics and essentially describes what you do in the game.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have downloaded the file, and do plan on reading it through, but it's goign to take some time. For example, there was something like a 3 or 4 week gap between me getting a copy of EODL and posting my comments on it.

Sorry about that. I know from experience that it can be disheartening when you don't immediately get comments on something you put out for discussion, but it's just the way things are.

For what it's worth, it looks like a very nice effort and I'm looking forward to getting my teeth into it. Unfortunately for you, I just bought a copy of Hero Wars, so Graal has got serious competition in fighting for my attention right now :)

Simon Hibbs



Simon Hibbs

[Jasper]

Haha, alright, good to know Simon.  I didn't expect immediate feedback necessarily -- past experience has taught that.  I too have ordered Hero Wars, but thankfully it isn't in yet so Graal still has all my attention :)

[lumpley]

I have a couple of questions and observations, from the short rules.

Do you need all the variables in resolution?  You've got number of dice, target number, and how many successes you need.  Would you consider making one or two of those constant?

I like Aptitudes and Strengths, I just don't see why they couldn't both add dice to your pool (say).

Is there any difference between the main character and the supporting characters in play, before the Final Trials?  I mean, there are resource mechanic differences, but do they mean anything?  Is it just in the Final Trials that it matters?

It seems to me that, as it's written, if you fail at the Final Trials it's an anticlimax, not either a satisfying resolution or a satisfying complication.  I'd prefer to see the former: if you fail at your Quest, it's because you've chosen, right or wrong, something else to be more important.  I want final failure to be meaningful, even sometimes desirable, in other words.

Or maybe I'm just missing the dynamic of Wisdom and Infirmities; maybe failing is a satisfying setback that sets up an even better final success.

You also might want to give some teeth to the FitM, by which I mean some decisions to be made after the roll.  You have a note in the text:
**Have specific rules for when larger conflicts should be concluded, based on margin of success
If it were me, I'd make that a decision to be made, with complications based on margin of success, not a mechanical judgement.

Cool game.

-Vincent

[Jasper]

Addressing your points one by one:

Do you need all the variables in resolution?

The main reason to have two separate aspects to trials, difficulty and complexity, is to create obvious differences in the kinds of situations where main characters versus supporting characters will do well -- or, more precisely, where skilled characters versus talented characters will do well.  It certainly would be possible to eliminate one of these, but then I would lose this (admittedly perhaps clumsy) element, and then I think I might have to reduce aptitudes down to one number as well.  And the aptitude split is one of the main ways characters are distinguished, especially main vs. supporting.  Does it seem excessively clumsy as is?  Or are the differences between complexity and difficulty not sufficiently clear?

Is there any difference between the main character and the supporting characters in play, before the Final Trials?

The main difference in play, mechanically speaking, comes about from the far higher rate of skill increase for a main character.  As time goes on, he will be doing a disproportionate amount of trial resolution, while the other character's players will be doing a disproportionate amount of narrating.  This is not hard and fast of course.

Really, I think the differences are primarily not mechanical at all, but simply in how the characters are played; and the mechanics merely support that.  The main knight is going to be the natural leader of the group later in the game, but in many ways supordinate earlier on; perhaps this could create an interestign group dynamic.

Also, since it is priamrily the main character who will be competiting in trials, and since he is probably more talented than skilled -- and thus has mroe variable performance -- he is also more likely to be incurring infirmities.  His journey will be full of ups and downs, and the supporting knights are there to carry him through his low points.

It seems to me that, as it's written, if you fail at the Final Trials it's an anticlimax, not either a satisfying resolution or a satisfying complication.... Or maybe I'm just missing the dynamic of Wisdom and Infirmities; maybe failing is a satisfying setback that sets up an even better final success.

This was the intention.  In much of the source literature, they knights are able to reach the grail fairly quickly (or at least one of them does, namely Lancelot) but they fail because they have some serious personal issues, are not worthy of it, and do not even really udnerstand what it was they wanted.  The film "Excalibur" portrays this quite well: whoeevr the main knight is (Galahad IIRC), finds the grail but is cast away from it because he doesn't understand what it's all about. Only near the end of the film,a after many trials and tribulations, does he come to face it again: this time, a booming voice asks him three questions, which he now knows the answer to.  

So it's often a personal failing that keeps a knight from the grail, and the mysteries that he hasn't yet uncovered.  I suppose one way to handle this more clearly, and mechanically, would be to institute a way to eliminate weaknesses.  I barred weaknesses from being used in the final battle because to do so would prove that the knight had not defeated his inner demons, and thus was not worthy of the grail.  But it does make sense to actually have them eliminated in some way.

How could this be done over the course of the game?  Maybe require the actual spending of wisdom?  Or perhaps require a certain level of wisdom, and in either case an appropriate narration by the player.  

You also might want to give some teeth to the FitM, by which I mean some decisions to be made after the roll.  You have a note in the text:

**Have specific rules for when larger conflicts should be concluded, based on margin of success

If it were me, I'd make that a decision to be made, with complications based on margin of success, not a mechanical judgement.

Okay.  I did intent a whole variety of results ot be possible with the trial narration, but it's true that I didn't realy outline just what they might entail.  Of course, if you really want a complication, you introduce that as a means of getting virtue....dragging out what would otherwise have been a clear-cut victory certainly could warrant some virute, but not necessarily in all cases.  I'll have to think about this.  Some more guidelines are certainly in order.

Thanks for the comments, Vincent.