I want a system that can...

[Crackerjacker]

Whenver Im toying around with rule ideas I tend to have reoccuring thoughts that I seem to think are important and I havent seen often before...

First of all, I want no stats for how much health I have or how much hurt I can lay on people. No skills for that either, because sometimes I dont think stats are neccesary at all. After all, why have intelligence, wisdom, and charisma stats unless you are gonna let numbers take the place of actual roleplaying. And if your doing away with Constitution or life points, as well as strength or attack pool or whatever, might as well get rid of the rest of the physical stuff as well. So I guess in result instead of having Strength and Smarts, you would just have a skill representing either being very good at fighting a certain way, or maybe even a skill to just represent that your good with brute strength with lifting and hauling and stuff, and it gives some combat bonuses but thats not the main deal, and then a stat for how much you know about a certain topic (the general Science and Knowledge from the BtVS rpg spring to mind)

Second of all I dont want randomness to place any part (or big part at least) in "tests" or whatever you call it when the actual numberage and rolling occurs. I cuold do without rolling dice whatsoever actually. Id say put in the appropriate skill(s) and any possitive modifiers of the situation, against the proposed difficutly and any negative modifiers. And then perhaps a small ratio of chance might be rolled for wth a d6 or something.

No "your health, life, whatever goes down to zero and your dead/unconsious". I dont neccesarily want something to accurately portray injury, trauma, and ect., but I do want to steer clear from the wargame origins of the hobby as much as possible in this aspect as with the others.


It all sounds pretty cool, and not impossible at all to do. In fact, for all I know this exists, if mayhaps in peices in different games. Oh yeah, point based character generatoin of course. (And another thing, no levels, but neither do I think that it's really that ok to juts get experience points to distribute as you will. I think story events and how much you use skills should maybe dictate the way you advance, but thats just a side thought. Id be just as happy with letting them allocate xp points, just limit them in ways as to keep them mainly boosting up what they use a lot, rather than trying to round themselves out in order to be all around characters, which is just as much as a muchkin possibility as is focusing on a few combat relavant statistics.


So yes, this is my game design philosophy rant. Feel free to comment or join in.

[Mark Johnson]

What do you want a game to do?  You gave a long list of what you didn't want.  What do you want?

If you simply don't want the game to "get in the way," why not play freeform?  Otherwise, come up with a list of features that you want.   And someone could probably recommend a game that had those features.

Based up on what you described, I would use a diceless version of Fudge with only two attributes Physical and Mental minus the damage rules (which are fairly light to begin with, so you might find them to your liking).

I wouldn't think that point based character creation would be to your liking (though Fudge has a point based option).  Why not simply describe your character?  Point based systems are often used to try to "balance" a character.  Why is that necessary in your game?

I am not sure that this topic is really appropriate for the Indie Game Design forum unless you are setting out to design this game.  If that is the case, check out the stickies and we can proceed further.

Talk Soon,
Mark

[Ben O'Neal]

so your character has no stats? what defines them? having a skill that says you are good at fighting or brute strength is having a score, and that score will become your character stat, and thus their defining trait.

no dice can be done, but it needs a balance. i've heard of karma systems being a good example (though i've never played any), but if you simply came across someone with one point higher than you have, you luck out and die, no challenge, no fun. you come up against someone with one point less, they luck out and you kill them, no challenge, no fun. without stats, who dies?

so no HP? no biggie, but not necessarily realistic damage either? how do you die? how do you kill? is life or death a simple "get touched by sword, drop dead" affair, or what?

does your system simply rely on players dictating what they want, and the GM saying "yes/no"? what is the basis for success or failure at any given task? how does the GM adjudicate? does every session simply run off a yelling contest to beat the GM/players into submission of your will? or does everyone always have everything work out for them?

basically, i am confused by your ideas. it sounds like you want a system with no mechanic. or a system so realistic it cannot be broken down into numbers.... for that i suggest buying a sword and taking to the streets. you will very quickly find the realism you desire. except maybe the concept of realistic wounds, because unlike HP, they do actually exist.

[Paganini]

Crackerjack,

There are a lot of implicit assumptions in your post about "The Way RPGs Are To Be Played!"

Try and distance yourself from your prvious gaming experiences. Imagine that you're just now sitting down with a group of buddies (doesn't matter who they are, but you really like them all!). What do you want to do? What do you want the game to actually look like, in terms of player interraction? What do you want to imagine? What, for you personally, will make you leave the table thinking "gee! That was fun!"

This is the way to approach game design. Don't think about all the things that you *hate* about gaming. They are not requirements. They can be removed from the equation. Don't worry about them. Just get your goals in order. What do you enjoy, and how best can that enjoyment be facilitated by rules?

[Shreyas Sampat]

Nathan made my points more eloquently and more gently than I would have.

[Sherinford]

On the subject of the "life points", I believe I have seen somewhere a game that dealt not with live points but with "injuries". Characters are normally OK. If they are injured, their capacities can diminish, depending on the severity of the injury. I suppose that if you want your game to be "realistic", it could be an asset to interview a doctor who could certainly explain to you the different types of injuries and their effect. If I remember correctly, if you have lost 1/10th of your blood, your blood pressure drops significantly and you are out... If you just want to have really fast and deadly combat, you can just use the "Amber" mechanic : the character who has the higher combat capacity wins, and can decide what he does to the other character (kill, injure, knock down...).

[Crackerjacker]

this is a lot of good stuff for me to think over, and just for the record this wasnt a manifesto on how games should be played, as I put in the title and my opening statement these are just thoughts Iv had when playing other games about things I would like if I could make any sort of game. Of course it's not so easy in actual design to accomplish things succesfully.

And actually, I do play a lot of freeform and it generally works pretty well, but lots of time the lack of structure removes detail from the game which is not a good thing.

thank you all for your responses.

[Paganini]

Since this thread seems to be developing into a discussion of specific traditional RPG components that are absolutely unrequired, I thought I'd post a few exampls of how you *can* do it.

In the first place, go to http://www.harlekin-maus.com and get ahold of Shadows. Play it. Then come back and talk about why you have to have a combat system, attributes, skills, health mechanics, etc., etc., etc.

Then go to http://www.randomordercreations.com and get ahold of the Pool and do the same. (Get The Questing Beast if you've got an extra $10)

Then go to http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley and get ahold of Otherkind, and do the same.

These games are free. If you can swing a little cashflow, go to http://www.adept-press.com and get ahold of Trollbabe. It's $10 for a PDF book. Go to http://universalis.actionroll.com and get ahold of Universalis. I think it's $17 for a printed book. If money is no problem, go to http://www.theriddleofsteel.net and get the Riddle of Steel. It's expensive, but it's a great example of how an RPG that *appears* to be traditional on the surface can in fact be something more.

There are tons of others, both free and for pay. Probably most will come up in a Google search. Paladin by Clinton R. Nixon. The World, the Flesh, and the Devil by Paul Czege. Nicotine Girls by Paul Czege. Metal Opera by Zak Arntson. Your options are not at all limited. :)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi, Crackerjacker

So far you've told us what you don't want, which boils down to removing any trace or the wargaming roots. But you haven't told us what you do want, which would be much more useful.

I speak because I was in a similar position as you not too long ago. I don't want hit points. I don't want stats or numbers of any kind. Fuck dice. Figuring out what you don't want is a start. Now you need to figure out what you do want. This is actually much harder.

[xiombarg]

To add to the examples here, if you want something like a traditional RPG but with no attributes, an old project along those lines is SOUPS. At one point I considered converting it to FUDGE.

Also, for a description-based game one step up from freefrom, there's my Success system.

[Lxndr]

After all, why have intelligence, wisdom, and charisma stats unless you are gonna let numbers take the place of actual roleplaying.

I think you're missing out on a lot here by thinking that numbers and roleplaying are some sort of opposing forces.  Social and mental stats, when wielded properly, can augment roleplaying (instead of replacing it) and thus allow a player to play a character with a greater aptitude at certain things than hisownself.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Interestingly, upon consideration, it occurs to me that you may not need or want to do all this stuff: reading other peoples' games, playing them, examining them for what assumptions they make and how they differ from your own. That isn't to say that they're not valuable, but they may not be of immediate value or necessity, as much as they will be down the line.

But everyone is right in telling you you need a destination - remember the Scripture of the Desirable Maiden, who ran! "One day she forgot why she was running, so she took out her heart and asked it. 'Why don' you look behind and see?' Disgusted, she threw her heart away. 'I have no use for beginnings', said she." (with apologies to Exalted and Rebecca Borgstrom.) The import of that is, if you start designing knowing what you don't want but not what you do, then you're going to end up running in circles, butting up against assumptions, tearing out your heart and asking it questions. You don't need that!

What you need to end at a good design is a clear vision of what you want the system to do, clean of preconceptions. You'll probably not have this at first - I didn't; you don't need it. As it turns out, the history of my design of Torchbearer is basically a story of my paring assumptions away from a visionary nucleus that took me the better part of a year to see clearly. But to start out, have a goal of some kind, and work from there, learning as you go. As you get deeper into the game, you'll find yourself asking questions: "I want my game to do this; what can other games tell me about this particular thing?" I think this is a lot more valuable than general experience.

I will note that I write from the attitude that "a sharply focused, streamlined design is ideal," and that colours my suggestions. Take from them what you will.

[Doctor Xero]

Social and mental stats, when wielded properly, can augment roleplaying (instead of replacing it)
and thus allow a player to play a character with a greater aptitude at certain things than hisownself.

Agreed.  Stats (traits, characteristics, attributes, talents, abilities, what-have-you) are one of the
more effective means by which an RPG can differentiate the player-character from the player.
For example, if the game has no method of representing intelligence, the player-character is
going to have the same intelligence as its player, and there is no means inherent to the game by
which one can play a character who is significantly more intelligent (or less intelligent) than oneself.
This is fine if the game intends for players to play only themselves, but many of us enjoy the
variety of personnae we can express through an RPG.

Doctor Xero

[xiombarg]

This is fine if the game intends for players to play only themselves, but many of us enjoy the variety of personnae we can express through an RPG.

But it's a fallacy to say that attributes are the ONLY way the player and character can be made different.

I know that's not what you're saying, but we're bordering on "this is the way it's always been done" thinking here.

Yes, attributes are very good for representing a character that's smarter than the player -- but there are other ways to handle that. Giving the player the ability to draw on the other players as a knowledge base, for example, for that "two heads are better than one" effect. (This has come up in threads discussing how to have a non-witty player do witty retorts for a witty character.)

I mean, I can play a tiny little girl with superpowers in Success, but there isn't an attribute in sight.

In fact one could argue -- and I suspect Crackerjacker would agree, tho he's welcome to correct me -- that having an "INT 18" makes it harder to roleplay a smarter character. I mean, if I make an "INT check" or whatever, I have a number. But what does that mean in practical terms? Does the GM feed me info? Am I allowed to make something up?