RedRavenRPG.com: I'm scared to ask!

[fruitbatinshades]

danger and heroism (the latter seems to require the former)?

Danger is putting ourself in danger, Heroism is putting yourself in danger for selfless actions.  As for your other points, yes it does need more explanation and tweaking.  Our playtesting didn't question as deeply as you.  Therefore we missed all off this, so thanks for doing so :)

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....(Clipped)

Yes, and no!  You've raised another good point here.  The XP idea needs a lot more work.  The idea (unexplained) is that the reward categories relate to the character playing 'In character'.  So a cowardly character would be awarded bravery for not screaming when the ghost said boo, whereas the demonologist would only be awarded bravery for fighting 10 ghosts single handed etc.
I'm not sure we want to apply solid restrictions to them.  That would break the idea of the system, more explanation yes, but not restriction.

First, Cheating. This one is problematic.

I call cheating, not applying a modifier when it changes the result of the action.  So if Bill needed 15 and rolled 17 but had to take 3 off for a flaw and didn't.  That would affect the outcome for his own benefit and is cheating.

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?

Not in the context I just explained (or at least not getting caught

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.

Again lack of explanation on our behalf.  Basically the three penalties cover a lot of the bonuses.  It may even be worth taking penalties out, which makes sense.

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.

If he was taking the mick, then he wouldn't be penalised.  That would add to the drama of the game and hopefully be amusing.

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.

That depends on the world setting.  If you are trying to 'Act out' a character (my definition of roleplay) and your character is in a fantasy world but knows about the dynamic interrelation between atoms and quarks, then that is bad roleplay. Recently I was solving all the riddles and got penalised because I has a low intelligence. I think it comes down the 'roleplay' definition again.

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).

Again it's not something that we want to enforce.  It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune.  A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life.  And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.

I like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something?

Because when you roll your character you have to have equal merits and flaw points.  Otherwise everyone would just pick all the good ones, good hearing, good sight, huge size.

This seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic.

They all use the same mechanics here as well. only 2 roll types, but the individual items have description that explain how to play them.  Isn't that what you've been telling me all along, more description!

[fruitbatinshades]

Bleedin'eck.  Fudge is similar to RR isn't it :(

[DevP]

I didn't see a superbig Fudge/RR correlation, but even if there was it's not a bad thing. Seeing your mechanics implemented (properly) elsewhere sort of means it was "playtested" elsewhere for you.

Again it's not something that we want to enforce. It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune. A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life. And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.

Putting up real barrier to resurrection, making there be a real price, is something I find cool. (As a former Designated Healer for a party, I'd dig the whole built-in pathos of a healer draining his very life into resurrecting a fallen comrade...) However, the whole death/take-a-flaw thing is cool, even if it needs to be playtested. Perhaps consider making this necessary if a character gets to really-nearly-dead, rather than 100%-dead.

[Mike Holmes]

You've raised another good point here.  The XP idea needs a lot more work.  The idea (unexplained) is that the reward categories relate to the character playing 'In character'.  So a cowardly character would be awarded bravery for not screaming when the ghost said boo, whereas the demonologist would only be awarded bravery for fighting 10 ghosts single handed etc.

Heroism, you mean?

Just to note, I can palpably feel (despite him being about 300 miles away from me right now) Ralph wanting to say something that relates to what he's said before on this thread. Basically, narrativism requires that a player address their issues, which means that the game cannot make decisions for them - else the game is doing the addressing. As such, a potentially nifty narrativist moment would be the cowardly character suddenly doing something brave for something he believed in.

Your game would, I think, punish this. Which, again, is sticking to your guns, and that's cool. Just realize that this is something that players who like narrativism worry about.

First, Cheating. This one is problematic.

I call cheating, not applying a modifier when it changes the result of the action.  So if Bill needed 15 and rolled 17 but had to take 3 off for a flaw and didn't.  That would affect the outcome for his own benefit and is cheating.

Uh, I agree. The thing is that you've ignored almost all of what I've written. Could you look at it again? I mean, even if it's just to tell me that I'm wrong?

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?

Not in the context I just explained (or at least not getting caught[/quote]So is the rule really neccessary? I mean legal theory says that laws inform, and have a purpose thereby even if they never need to be enforced. But, again, you've ignored what I said about this being a problem with the Social Contract.

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.

Again lack of explanation on our behalf.  Basically the three penalties cover a lot of the bonuses.  It may even be worth taking penalties out, which makes sense.

Again, I think the role-playing one is redundant with the bonus.

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.

If he was taking the mick, then he wouldn't be penalised.  That would add to the drama of the game and hopefully be amusing.

"taking the mick"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase.

In any case, your rules on Merits and Flaws say that a character must play them out. So isn't the example, a violation?

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.

That depends on the world setting.  If you are trying to 'Act out' a character (my definition of roleplay) and your character is in a fantasy world but knows about the dynamic interrelation between atoms and quarks, then that is bad roleplay. Recently I was solving all the riddles and got penalised because I has a low intelligence. I think it comes down the 'roleplay' definition again.

So, doing implausible things with OOC knowledge. Cool. As long as the actions are plausible, however? I'll give you the classic example.

I'm watching character A in a scene where he's getting beaten up in the park without any of the other PCs present. The GM puts the scene on hold (little cliffhanger) and comes to me and asks what my character is doing. I tell him that my character is going for a walk down by the park because it's a nice day.

Of course, what I'm really doing is saving character A's bacon, but it's plausible. I mean, the GM said it's a nice day, and my character has a predilection for walks...is the co-incidence that I'm arranging allowable? Or would I be penalized for using OOC knowledge?

Again it's not something that we want to enforce.  It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune.  A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life.  And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.

Right, so there's costs involved, but it's probably not the end. Right?

I like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something?

Because when you roll your character you have to have equal merits and flaw points.  Otherwise everyone would just pick all the good ones, good hearing, good sight, huge size.

OK, but once chargen is over, they're all the same, no? I mean, sure, have two lists, but then why bias their use with naming them flaws and merits?

The "problem" is that when you do this, people often miss those nifty "negative" uses that you mention. They forget to apply penalties for large when crossing that rickety bridge because it's a merit, not a flaw.

This seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic.

They all use the same mechanics here as well. only 2 roll types, but the individual items have description that explain how to play them.  Isn't that what you've been telling me all along, more description!

Sure. I guess I'm going to have to see what it is that's included in these to see what you mean by having to learn them. If it's not rules...

Actually there are about a bejillion games out there with this sort of general resolution mechanic. That said, your game has loads of stuff that FUDGE doesn't have, so it's not really a problem.

But, yes, in general when you've been saying, "Look our resolution system can cover any action!" it's been sounding a lot like, "Look, I've designed a car, with a nifty new feature called seat belts!"

Not a big deal. Just means you're in good company, and the idea is very sound. Again, what'll make your game is not the resolution system, but things like your reward system.

Mike

[Valamir]

Just to note, I can palpably feel (despite him being about 300 miles away from me right now) Ralph wanting to say something that relates to what he's said before on this thread. Basically, narrativism requires that a player address their issues, which means that the game cannot make decisions for them - else the game is doing the addressing. As such, a potentially nifty narrativist moment would be the cowardly character suddenly doing something brave for something he believed in.

I don't think its a narrativism thing.  I think its just pointing out that the paradigm that says "the GM's job is to police the players and enforce the bad things because otherwise the players will try to get away with stuff" is a fundamentally unnecessary paradigm.  Its a self perpetuating issue.  

Players try to get away with stuff when designers design a game that rewards them with greater effectiveness for getting away with stuff.  Designers then put in rules (like penalties for "bad roleplaying", or having the GM decide when a flaw does or doesn't apply) as a way of trying to keep them from getting away with stuff...but the only thing this accomplishes is perpetuating the situation where players will try to get away with stuff by actually rewarding the ones who are good enough to still get away with it despite the rules.

Its a vicious cycle and an entirely unnecessary one.  In one fell swoop you can do away with all of the "getting away with stuff" issues by putting the decision of when to apply the penalty into the hands of the players instead of the GM.

When the penalty is in the hands of the GM, the players are motivated to cheat.  I fully believe Lee, that the reason you feel the need to address cheating as an issue, is because you're used to playing games whose rules encourage cheating.  Any time you have a situation where character effectiveness diminishes by GM fiat, you've created a situation that will reward the player for cheating.  It is to their advantage to cheat, because cheating will increase their characters effectiveness which: gives them more enjoyable play, allows them to accumulate greater in game rewards from succeeding, and likely leads to faster character advancement.  

When you create a situation that pits GM vs. Player against each other like this it is to be expected that players are going to not remind the GM to apply the penalty, and come with elaborate explanations to avoid them.  They will come up with any number of ways to try to circumvent being hurt by the penalty.  The GM then has to spend more and more effort playing policeman and the cycle continues.  Thing is there are more of them then there are of you.  They will win.  

And its not that they're weasly little bad role playing munchkings either.  They're doing it because the game is telling them that they're SUPPOSED to do it.  The game is saying "if you're honest you'll be punished.  If you're sneaky you'll be rewarded".  Of course, many (if not most) players are going to choose sneaky.  Its not their fault...its the game's fault for rewarding sneaky behavior.

If instead you let the players choose for themselves when a penalty applies and when it doesn't, you short circuit that whole deal.  Give the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty.  They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them.  And they'll simply avoid applying it on those particular occassions where the GM would be inclined to "fudge" the roll anyway.  It doesn't make sense to cause a roll to fail by forcing a penalty to apply, and then fudging the die roll so the characters don't fail.

Better to just not force the penalty to begin with.  Best to allow the players to decide for themselves when to force the penalty and when not to.  9 times in 10 they'll do a better job of it than the GM, if for no other reason then they aren't trying to juggle 50 other things.

I don't find that to be a specifically narrativist point of view.  Its pretty universally adaptable.  The more you empower the players to do whats right instead of relying on the GM to enforce what's right, the better your play will be.

[fruitbatinshades]

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.

I like the idea, but that would mean you could only use merits when you use flaws.  If your character hasn't been near any spiders in the past month, he would be unable to use any merits.  How would you suggest handling that situation, any ideas?

[fruitbatinshades]

Here is the revised description for skill levels.  This should hopefully calrify what a skill level is:-

1. You are just learning this particular skill.  Just think that you are at school learning math.  You know how to add up and subtract.
2. You understand the basics and can do simple things.  You can now multiply and divide
3. You are now able to use this skill without thinking about it.  You now understand algebra and complex formulas.
4. You have now studied well and can use this skill to a professional level.  You can be an accountant, statistician, physicist etc.
5. You are a master of this skill.  You have now entered the realm of theoretical math. Math without numbers and the like!  Scary.[/list:u]You only ever need 5d10 in RR, but it is still possible to advance skills past 5.  When you do so you gain a special ability in the skill.  I can't think of one for math (maybe you truly understand infinity?) but for something like swordmanship, maybe you can call your sword to hand, or you gain a low level spell that is activated whenever you successfully hit.  

This is down to you and your GM.  Decide where you'd like your character to take this skill, think true martial arts master, and arrange something with the GM.Please bear in mind the world you are playing in.  In a sci-fi world, maybe shooting in two directions at once would be an option.

Now before anybody says there is a difference is improvement in levels, yes there is.  This is because of the XP required to move up each skill rating.  It is more exoensive to move from 3-4 than 1-2 for instance.

[fruitbatinshades]

God this was hard, still seems a bit complicated but I think thats down to the explanation.  Any advice appreciated.

The rules concerning shields are slightly different to the other skills, because when you attempt to block with a shield, you are assumed to do so. Bare with me, this may seem a complicated explanation.

If the attack is below your 'Block shield' roll, you take no damage at all.
If the attack is above your roll, you did not manage to block the attack successfully and the weapon glanced off the shield and hit you.
Shields can only take so much damage before they break.  To signify this, if a shield is hit for twice it's AR it will break.  [/list:u]I think a few examples are in order.

Your 'Block shield' skill is at 2 and the shields AR is 5.

You are attacked for 12.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You successfully block the attack.

You are attacked for 19.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You didn't block the attack.  The weapon glances off the shield and hits you for the remainder of the attack. 19-14 = 5 damage

You are attacked for 25.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You didn't block the attack.  The weapon glances off the shield and hits you for the remainder of the attack. 25-14 = 11 damage

The difference between the damage is 11.  That means the shield was hit with 11 points of damage.  This is more than twice its AR so it breaks.

To clarify: Any damage that isnt taken by the shield is soaked by the player and if the damage is twice the shields AR it breaks

[fruitbatinshades]

This is a revised description of how to award XP, like the skills, flaws etc.  We have moved the possible points and reasons into the World Manuals.

Awarding XP
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.

It is up to the GM to award XP based on many things.  Depending on your playing style, you may dish them out like a pay packet or you may discuss with the players what they think they deserve and why.
Each character will be awarded points for different things.  If you have a policeman he will obvious not be rewarded for shooting an innocent man, but a terrorist would.  Bear this in mind when thinking about XP.

To keep the game balanced and allow players to progress at a reasonable speed, we suggest rewarding a maximum of 25xp per session. A general guide for XP is about 13 – 19 for each session.  This means that a character will have to play well for 6-8 sessions to move to the second career etc.  This not set in stone so reward the players according to their performance.

Below are a few possible decisions you may take into account for assigning XP.  You will find this changes from World to world and type of play.  If a world is written for a particular style of play it will have a guide as to how to reward players.  The Fell World for instance is a traditional hero oriented world, where players are special, so check the World Manuals for a more detailed guide.

Making decisions based on the characters personality and skills, not the players.
In game acting,
When a player makes decisions based on what their character would do in game.  For example:  Bill plays Ragnoff.  Ragnoff is a demonologist but Bill is a vegetarian.  Ragnoff would not think twice about eating a live rabbit, so Bill should not make his character think twice either.

Playing the characters traits well
Improvement in playing
Using all the characters traits whilst playing.  That means not ignoring flaws or conveniently forgetting your characters moral bias when it suits.  If a character needs to kill someone but is a friendly character, he will have trouble doing so.  This should be represented in game, not just 'I'll kill him so we can move on'

Resolving character weaknesses
If your character is afraid of spiders, but faces one to rescue a friend then he is facing the weaknesses in his character.

Achieving the impossible
Luck, Surprise
If a character achieves the impossible or carries out an astounding feat maybe they should be rewarded?

Heading towards characters' goals.
Skill
When a character makes progress towards his goals.  This may be something simple such as going up a magic circle or a sneak thief 'acquiring' that item he has been after for months.

Being resourceful
When a character does something unexpected or does something that is really quite clever.  Maybe they used a plant pot to make a water pump!

Playing well with the group
Humour, Enjoyment, Usefulness, Coping well with poor role-playing/cheating
We would all like a game where you can become totally immersed in the game play.  Sometimes player disagree about what to do, how to play, how long a player is taking etc.  To have a good role-play group you need to find a balance between the players' styles and desires.  When players do so, reward them.  Our sessions are usually full of humour because that's what we enjoy.  If you enjoy a lot more serious, somber play then reward the players for that instead.

Thinking of the story, Drama
You can reward a player when they are thinking of the story and their character.  If they get really involved and use the characters history and personality whilst playing, that makes for a more enjoyable game and enhances the experience.

Success
Pretty obvious this one, when players have done well in the story, killed the baddy, found the lost child or made that killer decision they've been pondering for the last 3 weeks. They should be dually rewarded.

Penalising players?
This one is a judgment call.  If you want players to know they've done wrong, you can tell them so.  'You got 21 XP but I've taken away 3 points because you failed to think about the moral ramifications of killing the child!'  It's up to you and down to GM style if you do this, but make sure that the player accepts the reasoning, otherwise they will just get annoyed.

We also play an optional rule that you may like to include.  At the end of a session, each player has an XP point to award to whoever they think did best in that game.  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.

[Valamir]

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.

I like the idea, but that would mean you could only use merits when you use flaws.  If your character hasn't been near any spiders in the past month, he would be unable to use any merits.  How would you suggest handling that situation, any ideas?

Well, part of the problem is solved right in character creation.  If you've played games where players must take flaws you've probably noticed a general tendency to take very narrow "will hardly ever apply" type of flaws to make it that much easier to get away with never having it enforced against them.

If you have a system where players get rewarded for using their flaws, you'll find they start taking flaws that will apply much more commonly, or they'll take multiple flaws, etc.  Instead of the mind set of "how can I define this flaw so it never hurts me at a crucial moment" they'll have the mind set of "how can I define this flaw, or combination of flaws, so that I'll have the opportunity to draw on it a couple of times nearly every session".


The second part of the solution is not to rely exclusively on the GM to set the stage for flaws.  Let players have some rope to hang themselves with.

For instance if a player had "fear of heights" and they were on their way to interrogate a witness in an apartment building, a player might say something like "of course you know she's going to be on the top floor...they're always on the top floor".

Unless theres some incredibly crucial reason for the apartment to not be on the top floor, you as the GM can take that idea and run with it.  Of course its going to be on the top floor...why...because the actor's comment has already foreshadowed that expectation for the audience.  


If a character has arachnophobia, you can award points for them hamming it up, even when there is no penalty dice to award.  For instance one player says "come on, the mother says he spends a lot of time in the garage, we may find the murder weapon there"...the other player says "you go ahead, I'm not rooting around in any ole garage, garages have spiders"

A simple exchange like that adds color to a scene, develops characterization, gives PCs the chance to banter amongst themselves and really adds depth.  Award a point for it.


It really works pretty well.  If you wanted to make sure that the a player would never be unable to use a merit because they've run out of points, make using the merit normally cost XPs.  If they want to use the merit it will cost them 1XP per use.  OR--they could use a point earned from flaws so they don't have to lose an XP.  That way, they're still encouraged to activate their flaws but on those occassions where they haven't had the chance, they could still use their Merits.  

There's alot of room for jiggling with the finer points of the mechanic its the concept that I wanted to highlight.

[fruitbatinshades]

Flaws and Merits
Taran has just reminded me of a subtle point that makes a major difference to this argument.

Flaws and merits are OPTIONAL.  In character creation it says:

N.B. You do not have to have any merits or flaws at all if you do not desire any. But the GM may give you some throughout the game if you die or have really good or bad experiences.

They are there for players who really enjoy filling their character out.  No-one has to take them or is required to do so.  The death flaws is also optional and only applies in worlds/games where you can be ressurected.

[fruitbatinshades]

Gone a bit quiet round here!  You don't actually have lives at the weekend surely?  **Tries to leave desk, fails :( **

[fruitbatinshades]

Is anyone having trouble with the forum or is it just me?  It's suddenly stopped remembering me and I have to log in everytime, even though the cookies are there?

[Mike Holmes]

1. I don't post on weekends, so that explains my dissapearance.
2. Try clearing your cookies. This is a problem that a lot of people have from time to time.
3. Why doesn't Taran post at all anymore? I was hoping to get more than one viewpoint on these things.

Hmmm. When you say that flaws are optional, you mean as a balance to taking merits. That is, a character has the same number of merits as flaws, right? Such that if I take zero merits I have zero flaws, right? Is that what you mean by optional?

So, basically, to get the bonuses that merits represent, I have to take flaws, and risk the GM penalizing me for playing them in a way that he doesn't like? Put it this way - in your new list, you put in an exception to the flaw penalization rule that says if you face a fear for a good reason that it's not penalized. But this was just one example. If you like, I think we can come up with dozens of ways in which going against type is actually good play. Perhaps your character just decides that today is a good day to Kick his drug habit. Or maybe your untrusting nature would get you a bonus to detect a lie in some case, but you inform the GM that you trust this liar - thus revealing something about the flaw, that it's really about being a bad judge of character.

The point is that you can't codify all the reasons where it might make sense to go against type. In some cases, it's a well thought out player endeavor - in other cases, they just forget. Again, what Ralph says makes sense. If you pay players to watch their own flaws, you end up having them played more often. Basically, in your case, all you have to do is give a reward for playing to flaws in whatever way seems appropriate, instead of penalizing for not playing to them. If the player forgets to play to them, or just decides to ignore it, their "penalty" is missing out on the rewards.

Now, what's the difference between a penalty, and a reward not given? Isn't this just math? Actually there are profound psychological ramifications to just framing it as positive reinforcement. Give players rewards for playing to their flaws, and they'll do it.

Oh, and what I'd suggest, instead of end of session accounting, is giving out these rewards on the spot, as they occur. If you don't, you'll either have to take notes which are faulty, or try to remember everything at the end, which is even more faulty. The most potent rewards you can give are what's refered to as "Random Schedule Positive" rewards. Meaning they are given out only when certain behaviors occur (instead of regularly on a schedule). The player is reinforced right away, and is reminded to carry on the appropriate behavior.

In more number heavy systems, calculating EXP or something takes up too much time in the middle of play. With your method, the GM should just give out 1-3 points whenever a player does something on the list of good things to do. One for something perfunctory (if they have to ask for it, which they should be allowed to do, it's probably worth one), two for something notable, and three for something really remarkable (whole table can't stop laughing).

Try it. You'll find players keeping the list in front of them and sticking to the agenda so tightly that you have to pry them off of the table when the session is finished. As a neat touch, use candies to represent points, and fling them across the table at players who should get them. If they eat them, that's fine, they just don't get to spend them then. They only get to spend the ones that they keep. This makes the reward both tactily pleasing, and pleasing to the sense of taste, in addition to the normal in-game uses.

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

I'm taking a slower approach, now, digesting and reading more thoroughly. So, Lee, I'll be slower in responding.

Two questions:
1. Why do you see the need for a shield skill which is handled differently than any other skill?

2. When you're going to reward "thinking of the story", you're going to have to make sure all the participants (GM & players) are in agreement about what the story is. If one player sees one story, PCs collect the four orbs of each element from their guardian elemental spirits, and one player sees a different story, is it worth killing the neutral guardian elemental spirits for their orbs? Well, you have the potential for unhealthy friction between players. How are you going to make sure that players remain happy with play?

--

About the shield skill, you have a pretty neat mechanic that could be applied in general.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition, it succeeds.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition by twice or more, there is a critical success.
- If the opposition is greater by twice or more, there is a critical failure.

So suddenly, you can provide both a critical success and critical failure for all your skills. For example:

Block Shield
 - Critical Success: No extra effect, aside from an impressive block.
 - Critical Failure: Defender's shield is broken.

Combat Sense
 - Critical Success: An extra action, after everyone else has gone.
 - Critical Failure: No extra effect; going last is punishment enough.

Preaching
 - Critical Success: You actually any listening unbelievers to your religion.
 - Critical Failure: You accidentally highlight a major flaw in your own religion.