RedRavenRPG.com: I'm scared to ask!

[Zak Arntson]

As a response, an NPC comes up to your beloved 2 year old character and kills him with a sword! There are checks & balances in combat, which is somewhat 'freeform', especially if you allow neat player statements like, "I jump up on the crate and leap from above, swinging my axe into the orc's face!"

Maybe we're not sharing the same definition of freeform. I'll have to check out the spell section. Where is it in the main rules?

Like I said, balance is a tricky design goal, and you'll have to analyze how the game is supposed to be run by the GM, how characters are made effective in the rules, and how players interact with the GM and each other.

[fruitbatinshades]

Maybe we're not sharing the same definition of freeform. I'll have to check out the spell section. Where is it in the main rules?

It's not.  The free form is too open to abuse till I tame it.  It's more of an idea of mine.  If I can get it to work well without being too powerful we will include it, but as for now it's not in.

Like I said, balance is a tricky design goal, and you'll have to analyze how the game is supposed to be run by the GM, how characters are made effective in the rules, and how players interact with the GM and each other.

Surely thats down to the players and GM.  A good GM can handle whatever the players throw at him.  We can't know how any GM or player plays unless we've personally played with them.  If you target a system at one type of GM you have alienated 99% of the rest.  Everyone is different.  

Our current GM was an AD&D addict, POWER, POWER, POWER!
Up a level, bigger monsters, Yawn!. Whilst playing RR we have seen him think a lot more, use our skills in the stories and generally think a lot more about what he's doing.  In my opinion he has become a much better GM because he has more to react too and those of us who don't like powergaming are playing alongside powergamers and it's all working out.  They put their Attacks and defense up, learn new spells etc.  I buy a few new skills, get items to help me magically, increase my stats etc.  My character is quite rounded and handles most situations.  They are always looking for more devious ways to kill people or outwit the GM.

[Ben O'Neal]

If you don't want "powergaming", then don't cater for it. But I'm having trouble determining what you mean by "powergamer". Do you mean "a player who focuses on maximising their effectiveness" or "a player who focuses on maximising their combat effectiveness"? There is a distinct difference. If your game rewards combat, then you will find people who foucs on that area.

How does character advancement work?
How is experience dealt out?
How can it be spent?

The answers to these questions will help me to figure out what your game promotes.

For example, in my game, characters are rewarded for very risky/heroic/benevolent/malevolent/or extraordinary behavior, and they are rewarded with increases to attributes (from which everything derives or depends). So play is focused on these qualitative issues, which are very subjective and adaptable to basically anything cool a character can do. This sort of design encourages player involvement in whichever way they wish to explore (I think anyway).

Another example would be D&D (I know you hate it, most people around here feel the same way, but it's a very useful comparison because everybody knows it). D&D Characters are rewarded for killing things, and they recieve XP which buys levels, and gold, which buys equipment.  So play becomes focused on killing things. This sort of design encourages "powergaming".

I hope that helps a bit.

-Ben

[Roy]

Hi, Lee.  Welcome to the Forge.

Now before I make any comments here, I want you to know I'm going to ask some hard questions and state some pretty strong opinions of mine.  They are, in no way, a personal attack on you, your game, or the validity of your opinions.  

{on freeform magic system}  
The free form is too open to abuse till I tame it. It's more of an idea of mine. If I can get it to work well without being too powerful we will include it, but as for now it's not in.

By freeform, I'm assuming that you're referring to players improvising magical effects on the fly.  If that's not the case, please clarify what you mean by freeform in relation to the magic system.

If you're worried about balancing the in-game power level of magic, you might want to set up some guidelines for magic effects.  I'm going to use "levels" as an abstract term in this example.  A "level" could be a character level, skill level, or something else entirely.

------------------------
Sample Freeform Magic System

Level 1:  At level 1, you can only cast spells that affect yourself.  The spell can have a maximum duration of 10 minutes (outside of combat) or 3 turns in combat.  Healing spells are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing after the previously mentioned duration).
   
Level 2:  At level 2, you can cast spells that affect yourself or one other person you can make direct contact with.  The spell can have a maximum duration of 1 hour (outside of combat) or 10 turns in combat.  Spells that heal or damage someone are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing or damage after the previously mentioned duration).

Level 3:  At level 3, you can cast spells that affect yourself, one other person you can make direct contact with, or one other person that you can physically see.  The spell can have a maximum duration of 8 hours (outside of combat) or the duration of the entire combat.  Spells that heal or damage someone are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing or damage after the previously mention duration).
------------------------------

Of course, you don't have to stop there.  You can take magic all the way up to the power level of destroying planets, or use restrictions that apply to all levels equally (like Ars Magica's rule that magic cannot affect heaven or heavenly bodies).  The advantage of a system like this is that it still lets the player be creative, but it gives them some easy to understand guidelines to go by.  I'd recommend you check out Big Eyes, Small Mouth (by Guardians of Order) which uses a similar system to the one I described.  I'd also recommend taking a look at Ars Magica (by Atlas Games) so you can see an example of a different type of magic system.

A good GM can handle whatever the players throw at him. We can't know how any GM or player plays unless we've personally played with them.  

I used to think this way myself, but I now realize it's a flawed assumption.  Yes, a good GM can improvise on the fly and make something work even with a horrible system.  I even watched one GM make up a different system for each player on the fly!  But this begs the question:  if you expect the GM to go to that extreme, why would he even need or want your system?  He can just come up with a good one on his own.

The other flaw in this line of thinking is that most GMs are not, and never will be, what most people call "a good GM".  GMs need all the help that they can get.  That's where your game design comes in and solves their problem.  If you expect too much of the GM, and only target "good GMs" with your product, you're already positioning yourself out of business.  "Good GMs" are a niche market in what's already a tiny niche market.

Also, I used "good GM" in quotes above because it's such a loaded term.  Your idea of what a good GM is will almost certainly be different from mine.

If you target a system at one type of GM you have alienated 99% of the rest. Everyone is different.

I've heard this argument so many times that it's become something of an urban legend to me.  I think this is bunk.  Please don't take that personally.  It's not aimed at you personally; it's aimed at the myth.

You want to alienate some people.  It's called "defining your market".  You have to make some decision at some point as to who you're trying to market this game to.  It's better to do this consciously in the beginning than to just leave it to chance.  (By the way, even if you produce a free product, you're still marketing it to someone ... even if it's just your local gaming group.)

Whether you intend it to or not, you are going to make a game that facilitates some style of play.  Again, it's better to consciously make design decisions that facilitates the style of play you want than to leave it to chance.

I'm not going to get into the G/N/S theory here, but consider this:  is it better to make a game that supports Simulationist play and sells well to people who enjoy that style of play, or is it better to make a game that tries to be all things to all people and fails to sell well to any of them because it doesn't do what any of them want it to do?  

I don't need a public answer to that question, but you do need to answer that question for yourself.

The whole idea of the system is too make it open and adaptable for GM's.

If that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict:  physical, social, mental, magical, etc.  Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations.  That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.  

I never used 50% of the rules whilst playing AD&D because they were too much, 3rd is even worse. I always used to 'guesstimate' the relevant actions.

D&D is not the only roleplaying game out there.  There are a lot of different ways of doing what you want.  I suggest you don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D and really take a hard look at what you're trying to accomplish with your game.  

It is not a simulistic rule set.

Why does it have a combat system that includes separate block, dodge, and shield skills?  Why does the combat system check to see if you hit?  Why does the combat system tell you how much damage you do?  It appears that you're trying to simulate "realistic" combat.

I'm not saying you can't, or shouldn't, include rules for these types of things.  I do, however, think its important that you know why you're including them and ask yourself if they're really even necessary.

The game I'm working on doesn't have any of these things, but playing out a fight scene is still a lot of fun.  My game doesn't need tactical combat rules, so they're not there.

I guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control).

No game system can model reality perfectly.  Not even the world's most powerful super-computer can do that.  All games are necessarily abstractions.  You can achieve a powerful design when you consciously realize that and use it to your advantage.

Any GM can alter any system he wants.  Does that mean you shouldn't write any rules at all just because a GM has "total control"?  Is "total control" really what you want the GM to have?  If the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?  

At the end of each session the GM awards up to 25 points minus bad roleplaying.

What is "bad roleplaying"?  That's such a loaded term that it's useless.  My idea of "bad roleplaying" is probably going to be very different from yours.  I think vague terms like this are part of what cause dysfunctional gaming groups (i.e. nobody is on the same page).

We are not trying to create the worlds best system, we are trying to create a simple system that can be adapted to the group/GMs requirements.

It's good that you realize you'll never reach a state of perfection as it helps you avoid the frustration of trying.  But this could also mean that you're not trying hard enough to design a quality product because you realized it'll never be perfect.  If you mean the latter, you're going to regret it.  Word of mouth advertising is so important in this business.

An NPC walks up to your beloved 2 year old character and casts Teleport, Moon. How happy would you be :)

The old "I can't have fun if bad things happen to my character" myth.  I really hate this one.

I played in a D&D game about 6 months ago where that very thing happened and we had a lot of fun with it.  A powerful vampire cast a spell that thrust us into another dimension that was our world ... except for the small problem with it being ruled by the undead.

My entire game design is based on destroying this one myth!  Roleplayers can have just as much, or more, fun when things go against their character than they can when things always go their way.  Look at popular fiction:  the hero has to suffer and go through hell, sometimes literally, before we can enjoy his success.

We do not want to be associated AD&D in any way, thank you very much!

To avoid this, get rid of the assumptions you've accumulated from years of playing it.  Play tons of new games and challenge everything you believe a roleplaying game has to be or include.  You'll gain so much insight from this that you won't believe it.  

Also, you might want to go to the Forge's articles section and read Ron Edwards' Fantasy Heartbreaker articles.  

I personally preferred warhammer but they got lost in wargaming and never produced any backup for it.

Here's another myth I hate:  a game has to have regular supplements released to remain viable.  Around the Forge, that method of publishing is called "The Supplement Treadmill".  

Not only is that a good way to go bankrupt (as TSR showed us), it creates the flawed assumption that a game is dead if supplements aren't released for it on a regular schedule.

Warhammer is a great example.  That game still has a fanbase that's actually playing it as we speak.  For example, both playbyweb.com and rpol.net have active Warhammer games going on.

You don't have to buy any supplement to run a game.  That's why they're called supplements instead of core rules. The only thing that kills a game is a lack of actual play.

If you're absolutely convinced that you need supplements for your game, take a look at Ron Edwards' Sorcerer supplement program.  I think it's a very good way to approach the subject.

Sorry for such a long post.  Good luck with your game.  I'm rooting for you and every other independent designer and publisher out there.

Roy

[fruitbatinshades]

1. Forget free form magic, it is not part of the system, I will start a seperate thread to dicuss the ideas I have for that.

Also, I used "good GM" in quotes above because it's such a loaded term. Your idea of what a good GM is will almost certainly be different from mine.

IMHO, a good GM is someone who is constantly challenging the players, giving them interesting things to do and can respond to any situation that occurs in a way that befits the scenario/mission etc.  This also includes keeping believability/immersion high.

A GMs difficulty in the actual system is pretty low due to the difficulty table.  So in terms of game mechanics a GM has only got to decide what difficulty rating a particular action is.  In the rules, that is done by guesstimation, but may equally be done outside the rules with a pyhsics book and a calculator.  The point of the system is to make the way it's calculated irrelevant.

Player: 'I want to jump off this building into the straw wagon below'

GM1: thinks 'Thats pretty far, and he might miss it, gotta be Complex(15), if he misses it's gonna hurt, about 20 damage.

GM2: Gets out his calculator ((Mass Of player /gravity) * likelyhood) / target area = 22% chance so thats complex.  ((Mass Of player /gravity) * speed at impact) = 48 newtons. About 40 damage.

Because of the resolution system being so simple, you can do the calculations any way you like.  But that doesn't mean it has to be simple, the mechanics don't get in the way.

If that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict: physical, social, mental, magical, etc. Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations. That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.

Already do!

you don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D

See previous posts

If the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?

Get serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?

The old "I can't have fun if bad things happen to my character" myth. I really hate this one

Bad things happen all the time, thats RPG. But an NPC walking up to you (incedentally, he's off to buy some tomatoes from the market, doesn't like your sort, and is really annoyed that his wife said he couldn't go dragon hunting this weekend.) and with 1 hand movement, kills your 2 year old character (unless you have a space suit in your backpack).  THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU!

[Matt Machell]

If the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?

Get serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?

Hi Lee, don't dismiss this point lightly. It can be a game breaker.

Think about it this way: When games say the GM has total control, they're basically saying the players have none. If that's the case, then is there really much point in the players being there? As a player, you want the ability to influence the game. If the GM has total control, you lose that. Your game gets graumpy players or none at all.

-Matt

PS:  Welcome to the Forge. Hope the regulars aren't seeming too snarky. We're just trying to help you think about your game from different angles.

[Roy]

Lee,

IMHO, a good GM is someone who is constantly challenging the players, giving them interesting things to do and can respond to any situation that occurs in a way that befits the scenario/mission etc. This also includes keeping believability/immersion high.

We definitely have different opinions of what a good GM is.  If those are the duties a GM performs in your game, you need to make that very clear in the text.  You can't assume someone knows what that term means to you.

So in terms of game mechanics a GM has only got to decide what difficulty rating a particular action is. In the rules, that is done by guesstimation, but may equally be done outside the rules with a pyhsics book and a calculator. The point of the system is to make the way it's calculated irrelevant.

But it isn't irrelevant.  That's the very core of your system.

The descriptions that go along with the difficulty numbers are a good start, but it's not perfectly clear what the difference between each step is.  

What's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing?  What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?  

I would recommend you list several examples for each Difficulty Step so the GM can understand the difference better.  You could also reduce the number of Difficulty Steps and list a range of Difficulty Numbers for each Difficulty Step (e.g. Heroic and Legendary can become Legendary with a range of 20-25).

If that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict: physical, social, mental, magical, etc. Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations. That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.

Already do!

Actually, you don't.  For example, I want my character to charm the local barmaid and try to get some information out of her.  If my character has a Charisma of 6 and the GM decides the Difficulty Rating is Basic, I have to roll a 2 or better to succeed.

Now, let's take that same character in combat.  All of sudden, I'm making several rolls and subtracting the adversary's results from mine.

That's a different mechanic.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be in your game, I'm saying it seems to go against one of your stated design goals.  It's ok to leave it in, but just make sure it's a conscious decision to do so and it's worth any trade-offs.

you don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D

See previous posts

I wasn't basing that observation on your post content, but on the content of the system itself.  It appears to be trying to fix what you find flawed in D&D.  That may not have been the intent, but that's what it looks like.

If the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?

Get serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?

I was being deadly serious with that question.  I have played in games where I stopped playing halfway through and just watched the game.  You know what?  Not a single player had to be present at the table.  Our only role in those games was to "ooo" and "ahh" over the GM's "brilliant" storyline that he played out with his favorite NPCs.

By its very definition, a roleplaying game cannot give a GM total control.  If you don't include guidelines for the group's social interaction, the group will have to.  It's really unfair to your game, though, because many disappointed players will assign that disappointment to your game instead of to the GM.

... kills your 2 year old character (unless you have a space suit in your backpack). THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU!

You're incorrectly assuming that a moon in a fantasy world has to follow the same physics as Earth's moon.  If you look at the same exact situation that I gave you an example of, we were not harmed in any way but we were thrust further into a sticky situation.  That made the game more enjoyable for all of us.

You're also assuming that a GM has to try to kill that character.  A GM can take on the role of a facilitator instead of a competitor.

If a GM did just have an NPC walk up to my character and kill him, he would be breaking the Social Contract with me (you can find that term in the Forge Provisional Glossary).  Consequently, I would never play with that particular GM again.

From the Demo Scenario PDF:
If you roll all ones you fail to do anything.  Depending on the situation something bad might happen to you.  If you're trying to throw a rock and roll all ones, you will probably drop it on your head!

This is the old "Whiff Factor" at work.  Almost every player I know hates this.  The reason is that it de-protagonizes their character and makes him look foolish.  This usually doesn't fit in with the player's character concept and hurts the experience for him.

An alternative is to complicate the situation when this happens.  Using the example above, the character could be throwing the rock at a troll.  When he rolls a 1, whoever is narrating the result could say that the troll catches the rock in his bare hand and crushes it into a powder.  The result is the same (the action fails), but the character didn't look bad and the players will probably enjoy the colorful detail.

Roy

[fruitbatinshades]

I cannot account for a GMs use of control, all GM's are in control of how they play the scenario, respond to players input and resolve situations.  A bad GM that is 'In total control' will not have anyone to play with.  He will no longer be a GM.

What's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing? What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?

You tell me!  Your the GM! Is jumping a 60ft gap just heroic or diefied?  We don't want to create huge lists that say you can do a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z at advanced.  Thats not the point of the system and is EXACTLY what we are trying to avoid.

That's a different mechanic. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in your game, I'm saying it seems to go against one of your stated design goals. It's ok to leave it in, but just make sure it's a conscious decision to do so and it's worth any trade-offs.

Read post above about simple combat. 1 roll each player.

You're incorrectly assuming that a moon in a fantasy world has to follow the same physics as Earth's moon. If you look at the same exact situation that I gave you an example of, we were not harmed in any way but we were thrust further into a sticky situation. That made the game more enjoyable for all of us.

Don't be pedantic, and once again we are NOT including that magic system in the game at present.

Quote:
If you roll all ones you fail to do anything. Depending on the situation something bad might happen to you. If you're trying to throw a rock and roll all ones, you will probably drop it on your head!

Yes, but fumbles only happen at  low levels, when your meant to be learning and we've only had 2 in higher level characters in over 80 games, sometimes the fates are cruel. Again, it's up to the GM what a fumble means.  If you read further you'll see a lot of tongue-in-cheek references through the manual.

[Shreyas Sampat]

What's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing? What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?

You tell me!  Your the GM! Is jumping a 60ft gap just heroic or diefied?  We don't want to create huge lists that say you can do a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z at advanced.  Thats not the point of the system and is EXACTLY what we are trying to avoid.

Lee, I don't understand what you're saying here. If you're setting various difficulty levels and giving them names, you are doing nothing more than giving names to numbers unless you add meaning to them. And really the only way I can think of gicing meaning to these it to say what actions are at what difficulty in your setting.

If you don't do this, then I suspect your system will end up working like d20 does: the GM can simply decide how likely an action is to be successful, and then he uses the skill level / floating target system to mask this under an absolute difficulty level.

I know that my fellow posters often offer a thought without all the surrounding thoughts that make its meaning obviously apparent. This is a shorthand, admittedly, but it does not make the points less valuable!

If you keep dismissing peoples' points, which is what I feel that you've been doing for several successive posts, rather than thinking critically about them, then it will become very difficult for us to help you. I've found the past few of your points rather offensive because you have repeatedly forced people to defend points that they have made, without providing a counterargument or a reason other than "I think you're being silly!" This makes me thing that you are not putting the same energy into reading and responding to their posts that they are putting into responding to your posts. Please try to be more receptive.

[Roy]

Lee,

Are you getting what you want out of this thread?  If not, what specifically can we do to help you?

I get the feeling that you're dismissing our comments without giving them any consideration.  If all you want is for someone to say "ooh, that's great", you're barking up the wrong tree.

So you tell us ... what specifically can we do to help you?

Roy

[Mike Holmes]

Ooh, boy, this isn't going too well. Folks, give Lee a chance here. His responses aren't really all that odd considering the tenor being thrown at him. Everyone is getting far too emotional about things, IMO.

Lee isn't here to have all of his assumptions tested. I hate when we end up doing this. That's not the point of a thread like this. My questions are meant to honestly get Lee and us to a point where we can intelligently converse with him. But instead I see people sticking his head into the deep end of the pond. Isn't this precisely what we all said we didn't do at The Forge?

Heck, I thought that I was pushing it. Then everyone else comes rolling in...

Lee, to give some perspective, what's going on here is that your responses are, frankly, ones that we've seen a lot in the past, and they all indicate a very standard set of assumptions. And there's nothing wrong with that (he said, trying not to sound like Jerry Sinefeld). The thing is that we do a lot of questioning of assumptions here. So what these guys are doing in their brusque way is trying to get you to where they are in their understanding of things. They really want you to "see the light." So please try to understand that they don't mean any harm. They really believe that by looking at possibly changing some of your assumptions that you might be able to improve your game.

Now, if we can look at it sans all the rancor, I will delve into one sensitive topic as gently as I can in order that you might understand where some of these people are coming from. Many here believe implicitly in the ideas set out in Ron Edwards essay, System Does Matter. It can be found in the articles link at the top if you want to read it. But, in short, what it says is that the system is all about supporting the GM and players in making for good play. Certainly you believe that your system is superior to others, or you'd not be making a game, right? But what it says, further, is that you can't just leave the vision for how to play to the players and GM as you suggest. Because they may not have a compatible vision themselves. This is actually primarily what the system is for.

Now, it's been theorized that systems can be built that have adjustable visions. That is, your idea has been considered here on several occasions. This is where I'm really rather dissapointed with my compatriots - they've jumped to the conclusion that your game is what's refered to as a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" per the essay referenced. While I think that your design may have some of those problems, it seems to me to be potentially innovative in the overlying idea of being adjustable to fit GM styles.

The question becomes whether or not this is actually possible, and whether you've done it. Some of us would be rather overjoyed if you had accomplished this. There are several problems, however, that make it unlikely:

1. You have anecdotal evidence that it works. There are actually several problems with this.
1a. It's just one data point. That makes it far from statistically sound.
1b. It wasn't an independent playtest. When designers test their own games, they tend to get the results they wanted. That is, knowing that you'd have to adjust the game to a particular vision, you were able to do that with aplomb. Did you do other playtests?
1c. The evidence that you provide actually could be interpreted to mean that your group was playing in just one single mode after all (gamism).

2. It seems likely that you haven't actually seen the other modes of play much to be able to ascertain if your game actually does support those modes.

3. From what I've seen of the design, and the comments of others, I can garuntee that there are many sorts of play that the system doesn't cover.

4. Systems that have addressed the issue with what at the moment appears to be more theory and direct assault on it than it would appear you've put into your game, have tried to accomplish this goal and met with - well most people would say failure - but with at the very best small success.

Now, this isn't to say that you've failed in your objective. For example, numbers two and three I think may be largely irrellevant, because I'm guessing that it's not really your intent to support those sorts of play - you might not even recognize them as what you think of as playing a role-playing game.

The problem that does exist here, is what happens if someone used to playing in one of those modes comes to your system and wants to try it out? The worry is that, in saying that your game supports all modes, they may think that it will, play, and be dissapointed. So the question becomes whether or not you care at all about these players.

To be real specific, I'm talking about players who prefer narrativism as their primary mode of play. Which likely comprise the majority of posters here, as it happens. Some of what you're encountering is people here responding to "Our game supports all play," with "well it won't support mine."

And they're right, it won't (if you want a more detailed analysis as to why it will not, let us know). Again, the question is whether or not you care. Narrativism is a small fraction of all play, and you probably could get away with ignoring it and hardly notice. In fact, if you stated that you weren't interested in supporting that mode of play, then those people would immediately get off your back, FWIW.

Now, maybe you guys are geniuses, and have discovered something in the design that we're not seeing. I think we'd have out doubts, but without playing the game ourselves (or, better yet, independent play), we can't say definitely. But there's another thing that you may have accomplished - what you may have is a functional method to support a wide range of a subcategory of play. It's much more likely that what you have is a game that might be able to support a wide variety of play within one of the larger categories.

Again, however, what the problem is that concerns us (or at least me), potentially, in all of this is that what might happen is what's called incoherence. Basically, if the game doesn't tell the players and GM one clear way to play, then different players and the GM may have different views of how to play. Essentially this is your claim, that you have several different types of players all playing under the one umbrella in the test game. The problem is that the theory would say that conflict of these viewpoints is inevitable. And that when these conflicts occur, this is likely to cause friction between players. Which I'm guessing from your comments that you have experienced. That is, Powergamer is a term that, well, non-powergamers assign to a certain set of behaviors that it often found detestable (here we say it's just another valid way to play). So you can see the potential for conflict.

So, just how is it that you see your design being able to overcome these differences? It would seem that the idea is that the GM has so much authority that he can manipulate things so that the players can all play together without problem. Do I have that right, or is there something else to it?

Again, the counterargument that you're likely to see is to ask "what if the GM doesn't know how to do this?" Isn't that a recipe for disaster? That is, what if the GM decides to play so as to cater to only the powergamers? If you were in that game, how would you feel?

The other point that the theory makes is that in providing one clear way to play the game you ensure that everyone is on the same sheet of music. It's actually been noted that the sort of vision really doesn't matter much. Players don't so much as have preferences, as they have learned to avoid certain types of play as distasteful because of bad experiences. Meaninig that as long as the game is well designed, and providing good experiences, that most players will play anything. So, in terms of who will be "turned off" by a design, its our anecdotal experience that far more people are turned off by occurances of incoherent play, than are "turned off" by a vision of play that's not what they might claim to be their preference. Basically, the more you try to make the game "open to interpretation" the less playable it becomes is the notion.

But it's only a theory, and a still debated one, even here. Even if it's true, it doesn't make your goal a bad one, it just makes it difficult to impossible to achieve, meaning that if we're going to help you out with it, it's going to take a lot of effort.

Am I helping you to see what the main issues are, and why all the hullabaloo?

Mike

[dalek_of_god]

I'm really not sure if I should post this reply here or in the I.N.I. thread. I think I'm seeing some common patterns. Basically, it seems to me that people are confusing "a system for any game" with "a system for this type of game in any setting". Since I was logged in already I thought it might be useful to point out that there is a difference.

I think Lee, Taran and Autocrat are all well aware of the fact that their games cannot be used for every possible style of game. In fact, Lee has explicitly pointed out that Red Raven is designed to limit powergaming. You can't be all things to all people and still limit powergaming - powergamers are people too. The things you are designing against are as much a part of your game as the things you are designing for. They're just harder to articulate - especially because there are so many of them. This can lead to important design considerations being left out by accident because they were overlooked.

... and I just realized on previewing that I'm trying to say the exact same thing as Mike Holmes. Oh well, the intended advice stands. Look at your design and try to figure out explicitly what it is you want to include and what it is you want to prevent. Then ask yourself - does this design support my goals?

[Mike Holmes]

While the game does seem to be generalist or generic in it's intent, I think that it's also intended to be more than that. In the dialog I'm reading, I'm hearing about a couple of things. One is that the game allows different players to use different rules, if I'm not mistaken. Which is interesting, and has nothing to do with being setting independent, but rather "player independent." So I'm thinking that they do have their eye on making it, if not for "everyone," at the very least very broadly accessible in terms of styles.

But, of course, Lee and Taran will be the ones to clear up their intents.

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

Mike, your a star.  That is a fantastic posts and clears up a lot of the confusion for me and hopefully others. I will respond in detail shortly when I have digested it **BURP**
Different players can use differenr rules, and it doesn't affect the overall play (other than time to roll more dice).  Conflict between the players/party is a natural thing to me.  Fred wants to go and batter the dark lord, Sally thinks maybe we should investigate a little first.  Isn't that what roleplaying is all about?  If you only have 1 type of gamer in a group, doesn't it get boring?

In terms of playtesters, we have had 4 groups (2 in uk, 1 in finland and 1 in the U.S).  We had more, but most people didn't give us any useful feedback.

[fruitbatinshades]

To begin I want to clear a few points.

1. We will NOT be including the free-form magic system in the first release, so no point talking about it yet.  I will start a seperate thread for that.
2. Forget the scenario, is is badly written and does not do the system justice:( I tried to edit the post and remove the link but I can't.
If you want the manuals PM me and I will send them.[/list:u]

Lee isn't here to have all of his assumptions tested. I hate when we end up doing this. That's not the point of a thread like this. My questions are meant to honestly get Lee and us to a point where we can intelligently converse with him. But instead I see people sticking his head into the deep end of the pond. Isn't this precisely what we all said we didn't do at The Forge?

**Whimper** I've already admitted I am not as ofait with the different styles as everyone else.

But what it says, further, is that you can't just leave the vision for how to play to the players and GM as you suggest. Because they may not have a compatible vision themselves.

I understand now you've explained it.  We will certaining write a lot more explanation of how the GM can use the system (only as examples, though)

1. You have anecdotal evidence that it works. There are actually several problems with this.
1a. It's just one data point. That makes it far from statistically sound.
1b. It wasn't an independent playtest. When designers test their own games, they tend to get the results they wanted. That is, knowing that you'd have to adjust the game to a particular vision, you were able to do that with aplomb. Did you do other playtests?
1c. The evidence that you provide actually could be interpreted to mean that your group was playing in just one single mode after all (gamism).

1a. 5 groups have tested it, about 40 people.
1b. Only 1 group had the designers in it.
1c. This is question not a rant.  My character is engaged and we have things from 2 years ago in game time, still affecting us.  Our relationship is complicated due to our social standings and my best friend is treated badly by my lady, because he is lower-caste.  Isn't that narrativist?[/list:u]

2. It seems likely that you haven't actually seen the other modes of play much to be able to ascertain if your game actually does support those modes.

For me, this is true!

3. From what I've seen of the design, and the comments of others, I can garuntee that there are many sorts of play that the system doesn't cover.

Agreed, it is a framework (sorry, the programmer in me) that has been designed to be expanded. I'm not saying it, or will ever do, everything.  It just is designed to be edited, improved by people then those improvements, supplemental rules etc sent to the users (Hence we sell as subscription, not product)

It must be said I am a programmer.  I look at things in that way, maybe the idea of a system that can be edited is a culture shock (or one step too far) for most.  If you sit back and think about it, why can't one player be more concerned with how the story is going, while another is already plotting how to trip the GM up and get a 1000g?  Hard it may be, but impossible?
Please also remember this is pre-release and we don't want to fit into a particular genre. I know wisdom says that is suicide and maybe it is, but give us some credit for trying.

To be real specific, I'm talking about players who prefer narrativism as their primary mode of play. Which likely comprise the majority of posters here, as it happens. Some of what you're encountering is people here responding to "Our game supports all play," with "well it won't support mine."

Completely fair point, but if people could explain to me or give me a transcript of a good narrativist session then I would be able so see if we could ever accomodate it.  'All' was probably a very strong word, little, but strong.

So, just how is it that you see your design being able to overcome these differences? It would seem that the idea is that the GM has so much authority that he can manipulate things so that the players can all play together without problem. Do I have that right, or is there something else to it?

The GM in any game is the interface between the game world and the players.  He organises adventures, stories, responds to a players question about the story, environment, context.  Thats is what I understand a GM to be.  If a GM doesn't want a player to jump a particular gap, or break down a particular door for whatever reason.  Doesn't he have the right to do so?  Maybe that door leads to certain death, maybe it's important later in the story, maybe he has written or considered that bit yet.
That is what I mean by the GM in control.  If your GM is only playing for powergamers, you don't want to be playing in that group surely?  You would find another GM.  We are not saying the system will make a bad GM good, we are saying the system has been designed to free the GM and players from rules that affect the gameplay too much and to be able to support different rules in the same session.  If Sally want to use 1 roll rules, and bill wants to use the martial arts rules, the only difference is a another few d rolls for bill and a slight pause for sally.

Surely a gaming group should be that, a group.  Not 'If you don't play my way I'm going home'.  Maybe it's my age, but I like playing with different styles of players, we all play through our characters and it's our characters that argue not us.

Maybe I have too much faith in people.  I expect them to be able to work stuff out when it happens.  I believe a GM (I haven't GM'ed for 8 years, but I used to, once a week for 9 years WHFRP, AD&D, Lee's system) should be able to handle all this.  If an extra 2 mins on a combat round is too much for sally, maybe she should start drinking chamomile tea during play.

I'm not saying RR will enable any type of player to mix with any other.  We have no magic wand.  I'm just saying that RR is open to possiblility of multiple styles of play in the same group.  It will take a little adult behaviour and respect for others. If you sit down and try to make it not work, it won't.  If you sit down and explore the possibility and you can all relax and take other players styles into account and not get annoyed because peter always has to have that extra roll, then it works.[/quote]