RedRavenRPG.com: I'm scared to ask!

[Mike Holmes]

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**

Cool, awaiting whatever you have to say about it.

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?

Depends on what you mean by "type." Again, consider, for instance, that we find powergamering to be a valid method of play. And other sorts of things that are further afield. Where we worry about conflict is at a level that I think you're mostly unaware of. I'm becoming more convinced that the players that you're describing are all inside of one of these categories. Meaning that we wouldn't expect them to conflict on that level. Sure, they might conflict on other levels, and your game might address that.

Let's go back to that example that I gave previously of having to leave the daughter to go on an adventure. For one player, he'll protest leaving the daughter. He'll demand that his character would never leave the daughter, because he's so dedicated. The other players - wanting to get on with the adventure presented pressure him IC to come along. Soon this boils over OOC, as the player with the character in question says that he's being expected to play his character in an inconsistent way. And the other players tell him that they're dissapointed because he's not playing along with the game, and disrupting the adventure.

In the example, who is right, in your opinion?

To us, they're both right. That is, what's going on here is that they've each been told that they can play however they want, and each side is using a different mode of play. This use is annoying the other side.

Character conflicts are very cool - yes, characters can more than funcionally have different goals (I've been trying to explain to somebody recently how it can be that in my HQ game, most of the PCs are actively trying to kill most of the other PCs, in fact). Player conflicts in terms of PVP challenge can even be cool, if it's understood that there is competition going on. What's bad is player conflict where the players don't want to be conflicting.

This sort of problem is astonishingly frequent. Even when it doesn't end up in a blowout or anything, it very often leads to players who aren't enjoying themselves. Have you ever had a player leave a game without really being able to explain what was wrong? Or with just some nebulous complaint that the game wasn't what he wanted (despite him saying that he wanted action, adventure, and such, and was being provided that)? Or do you ever note players who aren't really engaged with the game and don't add much if anything - and when asked say that they're there just for the social aspect?

All classic signs of incoherent play. And there are many, many more. So many that I garuntee that you've seen this phenomenon a lot. Again, the idea of powergamers being offensive is related. What you're saying is that some part of their behavior (likely what we'd call the use of Pawn Stance) is found to be objectionable. So you've adjusted the game for it. Which is fine, this is actually what we'd suggest. You've already started down the road that we advocate going down.

The point is that, in fact, you've probably selected for a rather narrow portion of the overall spectrum of types of play for what to support. That said, it's a well populated part of the spectrum, so that's not problematic. But the point is that what you're seeing as allowing a wide range of player satisfaction, might not be so wide as you suspect in some ways.

Not to be insulting, but I'm reminded of a line from The Blues Brothers where Jake asks what kind of music they play at Bob's Country Bunker, and the woman behind the counter answers, "We got all kind of music here: country and western." You're game supports all kinds of players, classic hackers, and problem solvers. Now, it may be that your game actually does appeal to a wider crowd than I'm assuming, or more thoroughly. But there is some evidence against it. Not that we think that's a bad thing, rather, it's actually unavoidable.

BTW, the manner that you're describing players is sorta at right angles to the methods that we use in some ways. What you're doing is similar to how players are commonly categorized in game books, and stuff like Robin's Laws of Gaming. They indicate just a few behaviors of the players in question, and leave out some important considerations. More importantly, they really don't tend to cover all players well. That is, some "powergamers" can also simultaneously be "character plumbers."

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.

And what were the comments, if I might ask? Similar to what you've said above?

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

I wrote a reply to "types of gamers", but since it's more geared towards the question in general (and not just Red Raven), that I posted it in its own thread. Lee, I hope you read it and consider what I presented. If you'd like to pull those ideas back into this discussion, with specific application to Red Raven, bring 'em here!

The link is here: Is one type of gamer boring? (cross-posted with Mike's response in this thread)

In a nutshell, it's "what Mike said" but more focused on the three modes of play, with D&D as a concrete example. My suspicion, to use jargon, is that Red Raven is caught between rewarding simulationism (deciding to act in character) and gamism (overcoming challenges for the sake of the challenge). And with Mike's example, hopefully the inherent problems of supporting both equally are made clear.

[fruitbatinshades]

The characters knowledge and learning is reflected in experience. The more experience a character gains the more they can improve themselves either through new skills and spells or by just improving the already existing ones. Listed below is a table detailing the different things a player may be awarded experience for at the end of a game.

There is a maximum in game award of 25 points.

Code Select Expand

Category         Award amount
-----------------------------
Automatic        1
Role-playing     0 - 2
Humour           0 - 2
Enjoyment        0 - 1
Danger           0 - 5
Heroism          0 - 2
Learning curve   0 - 3
Right place/time 0 - 1
Concept          0 - 1
Surprise         0 - 2
Dramatics        0 - 2
Success          0 - 3

There is a maximum in game penalty of 15 points. Just as players are awarded for good role-playing they are penalised for poor role-playing.

Code Select Expand

In game penalty         Award amount
------------------------------------
Bad role-playing        0 - 5
Cheating                0 - 5
Using out of game info  0 - 5

We also play an optional rule that you may like to include.  There are three extra points available for the best player in each session.  We have the players write down who they think deserve the bonus XP and why.  That player is then awarded the extra XP.  This seems to lead to the players being more group oriented whilst playing.
As a general guide, XP of about 16 – 19 is the average award for each session.  This means that a character will have to play well for 6-8 sessions to move to the second career etc.

Again, we need to explain these options more clearly, but this should give you an idea of the bias in playing.

[fruitbatinshades]

Let's go back to that example that I gave previously of having to leave the daughter to go on an adventure. For one player, he'll protest leaving the daughter. He'll demand that his character would never leave the daughter, because he's so dedicated. The other players - wanting to get on with the adventure presented pressure him IC to come along. Soon this boils over OOC, as the player with the character in question says that he's being expected to play his character in an inconsistent way. And the other players tell him that they're dissapointed because he's not playing along with the game, and disrupting the adventure.

In the example, who is right, in your opinion?

They are both right.  The party needs to find a way to help IC look after his daughter.  Maybe they could take her along, arrange for protection or arrange for for some form of communication so IC could stay behind but still be part of the party, his insight may be essential.
They may even decide not to go on the adventure and help IC instead.

And what were the comments, if I might ask? Similar to what you've said above?

Although I wanted to end it last week it became impossible, as the group were interacting so well time just disappeared. I don't know when this will end now. Also, I have to say that I have had a great deal more enthusiasm from my players for this game then I would for a Vampire adventure or something like that. Heck last session they even started taking notes, which hasn't happened since we last played Cthulhu!
Ian.

They also pointed a good few problem areas, or areas that weren't clear

How come I can roll endurance on an arrow? (Changed that rule)
Why is dispell available at 2nd circle? Isn't that a high level thing?
Lots of questions about the races
Poison is too powerful!  Someone was killed in one attack (changed that rule)[/list:u]
They said loads more and pointed loads out, which we changed.  But i've reformatted and lost all my email since then.

[/quote]

[Mike Holmes]

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.

Uh, why the whimper. I hope it wasn't at me - I'mm tyring to villify the others, not you.

If you're appealing to their softer side - they don't have one! Just kidding. :-)

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)

Oh, sure. Note that my last post is a cross post making me look like a big meanie.

Examples, are precisely what the doctor ordered. Again, show one good way to play. Note that, in fact, you and I both know that player will mangle the rules all they like when they get them. This is standard RPG behavior. The point is to give them something that they don't have to rip up as much or at all to play, and to give them a more stable platform from which to adjust if they do decide to tinker.

1a. 5 groups have tested it, about 40 people.
1b. Only 1 group had the designers in it.

That's excellent. You'd only referenced your group, so pardon my assumption. Again, however, what's the feedback been like. This is crucial data. Do you have a forum or something with comments?

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?

Hard to say, tell the truth. But quite possibly.

Now, what about the system supports this sort of play, in your opinion? Not having looked closer at the system (and at the risk of looking like I did above with the playtesting thing), I'm going to guess that mostly it's a matter of the application of that "role-playing" award. Am I close?

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!

Actually, I'd like to take that back. What you haven't seen, if anything, are games that more actively support these other modes. I'm actually quite sure that you've seen stuff related to all three modes. Like your example above.

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)

Aha, interesting. That seems to have all sorts of prima facia advantages. Have you considered any disadvantages? I mean, the basic stuff will be good enough for play, right? If so, what else do you need to add? I mean, supplements, sure, like any other game - but I sense you mean something more object oriented.

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?

I too am a programmer (analyst/dbm, etc). It makes some sense to me, depending on the implementation. To be sure the idea of advanced and basic rules isn't new. But something more like what you're talking about can be found in the Scattershot forum herabouts. You may be really intersted in reading that stuff. It's a tad hard to absorb, but I think it might have some similarities to what you're on about.

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.

I think we're taking it into consideration if that's what you mean. If you want to read up on the debate over the validity of the idea of generic games, say so, and we can get you a ton of links pronto (or just do a search).

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.

Just to give you an idea, have you ever seen a session that was all just lead up to one character having to make one big decision like whether or not to kill his son who was turning into a source of evil (in the son's sleep)? That would be somewhat extreme, but the example is to make a point. No player challenges at all in terms of overcoming obstacles placed by the GM, just playing the character, and making moral decisions.

This isn't a definition of narrativism, just to be clear. But if you've seen sessions like this, then what about the system you have supports this? And, again, it's not a huge deal if the game doesn't actively support the mode at all. That's what we'd expect.

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.

These are all assumptions, and some are not even true for your game. They're certainly not true for all RPGs. This is how most people describe what GMs do in the most commonly played games, yes. But it's both inaccurate, and leaves out a lot of games.

If your GM is only playing for powergamers, you don't want to be playing in that group surely?  You would find another GM.

And now you see the problem. What is it that your game does to tell the GM not to only cater to powergamers? Note that if I was a powerrgamer, this would be the best GM for me, no? All his attention focused on my needs? That's perfect. This doesn't make the GM a bad GM. Perhaps this is what he thinks good RPGs are all about. Why is he wrong? Because you don't like that sort of play?

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.

What if each of these people honestly think that they're mode of play is correct. Say because they've played other systems which have informed them about the "proper" way to play? Then they just have to keep their preferences to themsleves?

The point is not that your rules get in the way of any cooperation. Just that they rely solely on the players all having an innate understanding of the mode of play in question. Which happens to work. The potential problem comes with players who don't have that agreement worked out between them.

And more than this, to get to the positive aspect of coherence, when everybody is playing in a system that promotes a single vision, play tends to go very well. Instead of essentially playing several parallel games that really don't interact on a fundamental level, you get a much more collaborative effort that really makes play fun.

Now, maybe that's just my biases showing. But you'll find a whole lot of work has been done on this site to examine these ideas. You wouldn't be the first person to question this theory, you'd be about the hundreth to do so in this forum alone. That doesn't make you wrong, but you'll have to understand that we've got a long way to go before you've proven to me that your game is exceptional in this way.

Not that you've anything to prove, either. Just that you may want to consider some of the potential ramifications of the theory. Up to you.

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

You'd only referenced your group, so pardon my assumption. Again, however, what's the feedback been like. This is crucial data. Do you have a forum or something with comments?

Read post above

Now, what about the system supports this sort of play, in your opinion?

The XP system? See above.  It doesn't actively support it, there are no rules for narrativist play, but it doesn't make it hard to do.  Having never played a proper Narrativist system I don't know how they work.  For us it just means we are not using any dice related rolls at that time.  Moral decisions are made by the player/character.  Maybe the other system have a wa y of doing it, but we just see it as roleplay/drama time.

but I sense you mean something more object oriented.

Spot on :)

Just to give you an idea, have you ever seen a session that was all just lead up to one character having to make one big decision like whether or not to kill his son who was turning into a source of evil

Last few weeks infact. We spent most of the session trying to help Dranmar get ready for his epic battle with the master (right of passage, think Klingons).  We found out it was coming up for him, helped him to train, had to deal with protaganists trying to steal his sacred weapon.  Spent money on the things he needed.  Talked him through some of his worries.  The previous 2 weeks we spent trying to get the weapon he needed just for this.

Now, maybe that's just my biases showing.

Maybe ;)

[fruitbatinshades]

I wrote a reply to "types of gamers", but since it's more geared towards the question in general (and not just Red Raven), that I posted it in its own thread. Lee, I hope you read it and consider what I presented. If you'd like to pull those ideas back into this discussion, with specific application to Red Raven, bring 'em here!

Good, clear explanation.  The thing is we play all of those game types (less realist).  The reason for trying to keep the mechanics simple was that it allows for any type of play.  All we cover in the rules are Combat (3 versions), Skills, attributes and poisons.  Magic is purely based on what spell you want to cast, whether you know it and if you've got the mana.
Everybody seems to hate this in here.  I think maybe you all have a purists view of RPG.  We want to enable mixed groups to play together (After all, our numbers are dwindling in the computer age).  That takes a little patience, but after a few session people tend to settle down and work out what they can do with each other.  So what if it isn't as pure as everyone seems to want.  We didn't set out to write a pure system, we set out to write an open, accessable, expandable one.
From the advice here, we need a lot more explanations and we intend to add them.  

Please ask me a few questions and i'll answer them.  Has anyone got a good link for a simple narativist ruleset?

[jeffd]

Please ask me a few questions and i'll answer them.  Has anyone got a good link for a simple narativist ruleset?

I don't know of any free narrativist RPGs, but I'd say the following are just about required

Sorcerer by Ron Edwards.  
The Riddle of Steel - narrativism hiding behind a very simmy combat mechanic.
Universalis.  More of a collaborative story system than a "traditional" RPG, but it's still worth a good read.

Those are the three off the top of my head.  Sorcerer especially is a great example of "System does matter" where the actual game system is deliberately facilitating and encouraging the type of play the game supports (Narrativism).  

Now here's a thought - Lee have you given some thought to providing alternate XP systems?  Since players can play with different rules, why not let them have totally different XP requirements?  Let each player ahead of time spell out what they'll get XP for?  

JD

[hanschristianandersen]

Hi Lee,

See above. It doesn't actively support it, there are no rules for narrativist play, but it doesn't make it hard to do. Having never played a proper Narrativist system I don't know how they work. For us it just means we are not using any dice related rolls at that time. Moral decisions are made by the player/character. Maybe the other system have a way of doing it, but we just see it as roleplay/drama time.

This example of yours is a very interesting one.  When the sheer force of storytelling seems to warrant it, you're explicitly ignoring Fortune-based mechanics in favor of pure Drama.  It sounds like that particular technique is a key ingredient that has lead to some memorable and exciting sessions.

Have you considered enshrining that technique within your rules framework, as a rule itself, and bolstering it with examples?  "When the straight-up roleplaying among the players and the GM is actively creating an exciting story for all concerned, consider setting the dice aside while everyone's going with the flow; if the narration brings the characters to a point where great uncertainties are met or risks are taken, then bring the dice back into play."  It's a powerful technique that I've seen used to great effect, but you can't take it for granted that everyone sees it that way!  I've been in some frustrating games where the GM insisted on rolls for *every* action that might possibly be covered by the rules text, possibly because it had never occurred to him to do otherwise.

Taking that example into account, and in the context of your statements that you want an "open, accessible, expandable" experience that enables "mixed groups" to play together...

It seems to me like your goal is to produce a game that's designed to be easy to Drift at run-time.  That is, at any given time, the GM might apply the rules in a crunchy moment-to-moment fashion, or in a very rules-light fashion**, to support whatever creative agenda is appropriate to the situation at hand.

This doesn't exactly conform to the party line around here (as you clearly already noticed), but it's an interesting goal nonetheless.  Assuming, that is, that I interpreted your intentions correctly.

**(This isn't to say that "rules-light implies narrativist" or that "rules-heavy implies simulationist", mind you.  That's one little trap I definitely want to stay away from.)

[fruitbatinshades]

I thought I may try and explain a little more clearly how the system is adaptable, yet easy to learn.  I was thinking about this last night.  I know before I post that people are going to disagree, but before you go off on one, have a fake play in your head.

The basic system is simple because most of the actual Roleplaying (being in character) is done at a players personal level.  We have 3 things that affect what a character can, can't and has to do.

Flaws
These are bad character traits.  They are selected when you create your character but are also given by the GM.  

1. If you constantly keep behaving in a manner that fits into one of the flaws.  The GM can make this a permanent state of affairs by giving you that flaw.
2.When you die in RR, you can be ressurected either medically (in a modern setting) or magically.  Each time you are resurected you gain a new flaw.  If you were killed by 20ft spider, you will be resurrected with arachnaphobia etc.[/list:u]Flaws affect gameplay because they are added/subtracted from rolls that they affect.  So if an arachnaphobe faces a spider, he will have to subtract the flaws rating from every role he makes in relation to spiders.

Merits
Merits are the opposite.  They are considered good character attributes.  They are rolled on when actions are related to those flaws.  Good hearing is added to rolls, when you are listening at a door.  The GM can award merits when you consistantly show behavior fitting them.

Both merits and flaws are opposed as well.  A character with Good hearing has to subtract the rating from his roll, when hiding in a church tower as the bell starts to ring.  A character with cruelty, will add that to his roll when torturing someone for instance.

Finally, we have skills
Skills are things that a character has actively learnt to do.  They have spent time learning and improving their knowledge and ability.  There are basic skills such as 'Block Melee' and more esoteric ones such as 'intuition'

**This is where I'm expecting abuse**
Note the reason the system is light is because each skill/merit/flaw comes with it's own mechanics. <SHOCK! HORROR!> This is where the easy to learn and easy to adapt come from.  

A player/GM only needs to know the items in play.  A meaty warrior that has built his character into the greatest/fastest/most aggressive person on the planet, doesn't care how the moralistic merit works!  Why should he bother reading the rules about it?
If a character wants the moralistic merit, then they just have to read that description(and the GM) and learn to play it.

Adaptability
When a character keeps behaving a manner that there is no, skill, merit or flaw for.  The the player and GM create it (and hopefully pass it on to the rest of us)

This is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart.  If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.

I'm hoping that provide some level of justification for our claims now, if not it explains where we are coming from.

[Valamir]

This is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart. If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.

I've found that some of the most compelling moments in roleplaying come when a character violates his established type.  When the arachnaphobe digs deep to confront the spider that's threatening his friend.  If such a scene is pretty dramatic and powerful, I don't think you'd really want to be penalizing it for bad roleplaying because they didn't follow their flaw.  I think there's also room for not applying a flaw, because other things are more important.  After all, Indie hates snakes, but that didn't slow him down much when going for the Arc.


Perhaps a system where the player can choose to voluntarily be restricted by the flaw when he chooses, and can ignore it when he doesn't.

Off the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point.  Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).

Then the player can use those points to activate merits.  Instead of automatically applying merits, the player has to spend a point.  The more points spent, the more of an advantage they get.  

Something like this would have the players voluntarily activating Flaws right and left on their own without the GM needing to police them to make sure they don't "forget" or needing the threat of "bad roleplaying" to make them remember.  They would principly activate Flaws in situations that 1) are fairly trivial (where they add color to the narrative) and 2) where they add an interesting complication to the story (never underestimate your players willingness to hose themselves).  They would generally avoid activating the flaw during the really super important scene where everything is on the line.  

This would accord quite nicely with how such "flaws" are generally in stories and movies.  The whole movie will be full of little indicators of the difficulty faced by the blind kid...but in the key scene where the kid must root out the proper bullet and toss it across the street to the hero the blindness is pure color and doesn't hinder him.  Unless the player thinks it would be really cool to have him toss the bullet in the wrong direction and make the hero dive for it...

[fruitbatinshades]

I've found that some of the most compelling moments in roleplaying come when a character violates his established type.

I mean when they deliberatly fail to take that flaw into account when doing any roll based things, cheating.

Off the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point.  Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).

Way too much tracking and maths.  Your lists would be huge after a 6 player weekend session. Its a lot more for the players to track too.  Although it could have it's merits.  Nice idea, just not sure how it would go in play.

This would accord quite nicely with how such "flaws" are generally in stories and movies.  The whole movie will be full of little indicators of the difficulty faced by the blind kid...but in the key scene where the kid must root out the proper bullet and toss it across the street to the hero the blindness is pure color and doesn't hinder him.  Unless the player thinks it would be really cool to have him toss the bullet in the wrong direction and make the hero dive for it...

Again the whole reason we avoided heavy mechanics is to allow the GM to decide when, and when not too, apply these.  If the character in the bell tower is just eating a  sandwich 'That must of hurt' from the GM is enough.  If he's hiding above a square full of soldiers looking for him, then he will have to resist screaming in pain and alerting those below.

[hanschristianandersen]

Off the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).

Way too much tracking and maths. Your lists would be hige after a 6 player weekend session

Too much tracking?  Not really.

I've played games that use mechanics like this, and the bookkeeping is next to nothing.  Whenever the player exercises a merit or flaw in a way that the GM decides is appropriate and interesting, the GM just grins and says "That was cool, add a point!" to the player, who makes a quick tally mark on his sheet.

That's it.

A key insight is that because these "points" are somehow useful to the players, the players themselves are more than happy to do the minimal record keeping involved.  It's like hoarding candy.  Plus, the GM still has full control over how often these are handed out.


And now, Lee, let me turn around and ask you a question - In games that you've ran or played in, how many times have you seen a GM actually penalize a player experience points?  And of those times, how did the player react?  I can only speak from my own personal anectodal experience, but I've *never* seen XP penalties go over well with players, expecially when the penalty is imposed by GM fiat in response to an in-character action that the player thought was perfectly reasonable.

Think carefully before you enshrine Negative Reinforcement techniques in your ruleset; they can have nasty social repercussions.

[Valamir]

Way too much tracking and maths. Your lists would be huge after a 6 player weekend session. Its a lot more for the players to track too. Although it could have it's merits. Nice idea, just not sure how it would go in play.

Not sure what you mean by that.  What lists?

Player with fear of heights says in play  "I peak out the window of the penthouse and shudder"...take 1 point.

[later on]
"I don't go out on the balcony"...take 1 point.
[later on]

"Hold on I'll save you"...spend points to avoid taking a penalty from the flaw...

Again the whole reason we avoided heavy mechanics is to allow the GM to decide when, and when not too, apply these. If the character in the bell tower is just eating a sandwich 'That must of hurt' from the GM is enough. If he's hiding above a square full of soldiers looking for him, then he will have to resist screaming in pain and alerting those below.

I'm not sure what you mean by avoiding heavy mechanics.  The mechanic I'm talking about would be about as complex as a bowl full of glass stones to draw and spend.

But on a more important note.  Its been my experience that you get alot better mileage on incenting players to track their own merits and flaws than requiring the GM to do it.  

In a crucial situation, the GM says "hey your flaw applies", often times the players will resent it, especially if the flaw is a real stretch and you can build up an adversarial atmosphere where the players are spending most of their effort trying to come up with some bizarre byzantine explanation to justify why a flaw doesn't apply.

On the other hand, when you put the flaw into the player's hands to decide when and how it takes effect (along with a suitable reward based incentive) you'll find that they'll embrace them rather than try to avoid them.  Players will willingly and gleefully completely sabotage their own character's effectiveness by applying their own flaws to themselves in ways that they would never tolerate a GM doing to them.

Its really a pretty powerful thing.

[Mike Holmes]

Whoa. Lots to catch up on here.

First, the "role-playing" rewards, as you refered to them, are really enlightening. First, it's interesting that you refer to them as role-playing rewards, when in fact that's one of your subcategories. You're even using that term to mean different things in your own descriptions. You still haven't said what "role-playing" means to you, so I'm going to have to assume that in the list it means something like "First person play of the role of the character in a believable fashion"

I think that the list really gives a very tight definition of what play is all about in your game. Yes, some of them need further definition. For example, "enjoyment." Who's enjoyment is that? The player's, the GM's, everybody's? Based on what? I mean, if the game is good, isn't it enjoyable? It sounds like you're giving points for players giving positive feedback. Which is interesting. Danger - meaning that the player was willing to get his character into danger? Or is this just based on what danger the GM put the characters in for that session? What's the difference between danger and heroism (the latter seems to require the former)? Learning Curve... no idea what that is - the player learning the rules better? The character learning some lesson in game? How does the player persue this one? Right Place/Time? That's the player maneuvering to have his character in the Right Place at the Right Time? How is "right" determined? Does this just mean that the player tries to get his character to the action? Concept... no ideas at all - if it means playing to the character's concept, then isn't that what I'm thinking role-playing is? Success - is this dependent on the outcome of rolls or not? That is, is the success in question relative to player creativity, or is it fully adjusted by luck?

What this is telling me is that if I want to play a coward that I'm not going to get a lot of points from the big danger category, and less from heroism. Reading this, it informs me that I ought to play a heroic character who's likely to swing into danger. That's very cool. This is precisely the sort of limit that we advocate. But realize that it's a limit, that eliminates a ton of character concepts that might be valid in other games. From the list alone, I can tell that this game isn't about playing brooding losers, but about playing action heroes.

More telling, I think, are the penalties. I mean, in separating them out as negatives, you really make them stand out.

First, Cheating. This one is problematic. Cheating is what we'd call a Social Contract level problem. That is, if you have someone in your game who's cheating, then the problem is at a level that's sorta beyond the game to fix. Basically, there's an essential dissagreement amongst the players about what good play is that has to be fixed, and cannot be fixed by penalties. This is sorta hard to explain. Basically, people cheat for two reasons. The first is just to be dishonest in order to gain some percieved advantage. If you have a player like this in your game, then the response to catching him cheating should be to remove him from the game. Basically, everyone is there to have fun, and in voiding the rules that everyone has agreed to play by, he's attacking everyone at the table on a personal level. The game aside, this can ruin friendships, and shouldn't be tolerated at all.

That said, a lot of cheating in RPGs happens for another reason. Namely, the player has a different vision of how the game should play, and is "drifting" (technical term meaning altering the rules) the game to suit his needs. Here's a good example: some players like to have the feeling that their characters can die to add suspense, but others feel that death should only occur at suitably dramatic moments. The latter sort of player might alter the game in order to make it fit his needs. In this case, the player is displaying that he has a different idea of how the game should work - the most direct example of incoherence that you can find. I'd posit that the vast majority of cheating that occurs in RPGs is this happening. The players aren't disregarding the other's playing so much as trying to get the game to be what they need it to be.

Simply put, if your game puts out a focused vision for how to play enjoyably, players can see that, and adhere to it - cheating doesn't occur, because they're getting what they expect from the game. So, do you find that players cheat a lot at your game? If not, then you don't need this rule. If they do, then you've chosen an interesting path to go along. The rule says, essentially, cheat to make the game what you need it to be - just don't get caught.

From a really radical POV, I want to say that's brilliant. But, realistically, I think it's probably quite problematic.

It's very interesting that role-playing (whatever it happens to mean) merits a potential bonus of two points, but a potential penalty of five points. What this is telling me is that you're more concerned with players doing things that are "out of character" in terms of not matching the character concept, than you are with players making  a good portrayal. This indicates a percieved problem with players playing away from their character concepts. On a related note, psychology says that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative in most cases. So, why not have Role-Playing offer up to 7 points, instead?

Now, some of these can be contradictory. Is this intentional? For example, let's say that I have a character who is known for being brave. But suddenly the party encounters a huge troll, and the player has the character run away leaving the other characters in a very bad position. Are there circumstances where this character will not be penalized for things like role-playing, and concept? For example, if the player explained that he just thought it would be cool to have the character uncharacteristically freak out in this circumstance, such that he'd have to deal with the shame of what he'd done, would that make it good role-playing? Moreover, would he loose points for danger and heroism? See, this sort of thing seems very dramatic to me, and to some players it's very much good play to do stuff like this. So would it score for dramatics?

What I'm saying is that it seems that a lot of potential actions aren't worth a lot of points. As such, your reward system promotes a very specific set of behaviors. Again, which I think are the behaviors that you want to see, but are very specific, rather than being broad at all.

Most limiting of all however, is your proscription against using OOC knowledge. To some, using OOC knowledge is not only acceptable, but preventing it's use as you're trying to do is considered a really bad design flaw. For my part, I've said that it's a valid choice. But realize that in trying  to eliminate this, you eliminate a huge chunk of the playstyles that exist (this has nothing to do with mode, but instead with what we call stance). Including most people's prefered styles at this site. Again, I'll go to the mat for you to say that this is a valid choice - but I will say that you may want to read some of the rebuttals on the idea.

The reason I keep hammering on this point about your game being limited is that I think that you guys understand the power of system in making for good play. I'm just hoping to make you see that you can apply this idea to the whole design, not just to specific parts.

The basic system is simple because most of the actual Roleplaying (being in character) is done at a players personal level.  We have 3 things that affect what a character can, can't and has to do.

Ah, there's a definition. I think we're on the same wavelength. Probably.

When you die in RR, you can be ressurected either medically (in a modern setting) or magically.  Each time you are resurected you gain a new flaw.  If you were killed by 20ft spider, you will be resurrected with arachnaphobia etc.

This is usually telling in some way. Basically, it seems that death is considered not an end to the character (barring unusual circumstances like the "total party kill"), but just gives a flaw to the character. Which is a penalty in some ways, but which other players really enjoy. That's pretty cool (there's a bias here against players losing their characters to undramatic deaths).

In general, your rules for flaws and merits sound a lot like the core rules for Hero Quest. To imagine that game, think of a game where everything was a flaw or merit.

Both merits and flaws are opposed as well.  A character with Good hearing has to subtract the rating from his roll, when hiding in a church tower as the bell starts to ring.  A character with cruelty, will add that to his roll when torturing someone for instance.

I like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something? If it's basically the GM's option as to when to use each as either a bonus or malus, then why the need to differentiate? I'd imagine that some are very borderline like "Agressive." Would that be a flaw or a merit? What would it matter? Is there some other rule that pertains to the differentiation?

**This is where I'm expecting abuse**

Please. Melodramatics are not neccessary.

Note the reason the system is light is because each skill/merit/flaw comes with it's own mechanics. <SHOCK! HORROR!> This is where the easy to learn and easy to adapt come from.  

A player/GM only needs to know the items in play.  A meaty warrior that has built his character into the greatest/fastest/most aggressive person on the planet, doesn't care how the moralistic merit works!  Why should he bother reading the rules about it?
If a character wants the moralistic merit, then they just have to read that description(and the GM) and learn to play it.

This seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. I mean, have you seen FUDGE

for example? Didn't someone link you to [The Pool, earlier? In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic. Meaning that you only ever have to learn one thing. So, sure you only have to learn the rules that pertain to your character, but if there's a different rule for everything, then that would be what a lot of people would describe as a very rules heavy game.

Which isn't a criticism itself. I'm a big fan of pretty heavy games, myself. The question is whether or not the additional systems add value or not at a rate comensurate with the extra work involved.

See MJ Young's game Multiverser, which may have similarities.

Adaptability
When a character keeps behaving a manner that there is no, skill, merit or flaw for.  The the player and GM create it (and hopefully pass it on to the rest of us)

This is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart.  If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.

Gotcha.

First, a lot of games out there right now have the "adaptability" concept. Again, Hero Quest (you really should take a look at that one), does precisely the same thing that you describe. Story Engine is completly freeform, the players make up all their "skill/ability/flaws/whatever." I have an unpublished system that has categories of abilities, but players make the specifics up (it's called Synthesis).

They are both right. The party needs to find a way to help IC look after his daughter.[/quoe]This doesn't solve the problem. In the example that I gave, the player's decision is that he feels that he wouldn't leave his daughter. You're assuming that he'll just change that assumption for the good of the group as a whole. But, again, you're failing to see how some people think that their right to play their character as they see fit is sacrosanct. In fact, considering that the GM has an adventure written up would be making a decision based on OOC knowledge - shouldn't that get the player a penalty if he changes his mind?


Just a bunch of stuff to chew on right now. FWIW, I'm liking your game the more I see of it.


Oh, Universalis was mentioned above as a game that supports narrativism. This is somewhat debatable. I've used the term "abashed" to refer to Universalis' approach to narrativism (and as one of the designers, I hope that I have some idea of what I'm talking about there). On the other hand, Universalis will challenge your assumptions if that interests you at all.

Zak, I think your analysis is correct, but I think that the game may end up being at least somewhat coherent as a hybrid. See Ron's comments on Sim supporting Gamism and vice versa in the appropriate essays.

Mike