[M:COTEC]- Building The Design Architecture

[RobMuadib]

Hi all

Work is still progressing on Megamyrian: Chronicles of the Eternal Cycle
TM (M:COTEC for short). (snails pace is the rate it occurs, sigh:()
However, one part that has left me scratching my head and is a bit
beyond my simple imitative design-fu is how to build up the design
architecture of the game. The design architecture is to be the meta-system
(s) present in the game that allow the players to create the game entities
(Personae, props, SFX, backgrounds) that comprise the narrative
environment. Huh? you might be saying, well let me point you to my, as
yet unfinished,
Game
Concepts Metaplay document. Up to what I have finished, it
describes how the play of the game involving the design architecture
occurs. (you'll notice I stop right at page 16, after getting to Production
Scripts) The design architecture is meant to be the major play-doh of the
game. It is what the players will spend a large amount of their time
tweaking and twiddling with to create entities for a particular narrative
environment.


So where was I. Yes, I am having trouble designing the design
architecture.  Part of it will be very much like Hero System's Powers
system, which they leverage in addition towards the creation of vehicles,
weapons, equipment, etc. My system will be somewhere between Hero's
Power system and DC heroes power/gadgets'  system, with a bit of AMSH
thrown in. I have yet to design this part of course though I have ample
stuff to rip off. I am not knowledgeable enough to make a hardcore
vehicle design system along GURPS/CORPS vehicle design system.
Instead it will be more system/effects based like Hero/DCHeroes does.
This is as how I see it coming together at least.

Ok, that is at least recognizable as doable. In addition to this I want to put
in a layer of Narrative Environment design. Here I am inspired by Aria's
arrative ENvironment creation system. Some of the major elements of the
narrative environment design that factor into the Persona Creation
Architecture (that's attributes, skills, talents, Metabilities, etc.) are
Heritage templates- specific outlines of various racial/ethnic groups in a
society and various traits that are common to them. Defining the
hierarchy of social estates and status models. which builds into the status
and reputation elements of the narrative environment. (By defining
these elements players create unique environment in which to set
Persona, or that is idea.) Next is the idea of creation environments. Which
define the "narrative environments" in which a Persona was able to learn
skills. By defining the creation environments you tie the Persona into the
narrative environment and provide a reasonable basis for skill selection
and choice. This choice is based on the Vocational cluster (grouping of
skills based on professions), Status Archetype (skills available to
particular status of character), Environ Class (Urban, Rural, wilderness,
different).


In essence It would have the players create custom lifepaths' of a sort for
character's to follow. Tieing them into the narrative environment. Since all
skills are developed in Creation environments based in the narrative
environment. So you'd go to a specific military academy or be taught by a
particular group of wizards etc. This would work somewhat like Traveller's
Lifepath with the option of Trials involved as well. So that is some
direction. Additionally, Players would detail the narrative environment in
Scope, Geography(probably including some travelleresque world building
type info, also affecting attributes and other traits), Environmental,
Economic, Political,*& history. Plus details of technology and Metanormal
powers present.


So anyway, that serves as the rough basis of what I have concieved of
creating for the design Architecture. So what do people think, will that be
enough to provide the play I am lookign for. Lots of imaginative sim world-
building and gamist sandboxing in narratives? Any other brilliant ideas on
how to implement of develop the design architecture (which consists of
the Persona Design Architecture, the embedded Metabilities design
architecture, and the Narrative ENvironment design architecture.)



best

P.S. Yeah I am thinking out loud and taking stock so sue me, or better yet
help form my ideas into more concrete shape, and help me finish my
damn game, I've been working on it since like 1998 (snails pace I know.)

[lumpley]

Dang, Rob.  I know you're asking about substance not style, but I can't read through your metaphor!

Tell me if I get it:

I pay coins to create things.

I get coins a) for fulfilling my duties as a player; b) when other people use my creations; c) when I play my character(s) according to others' expectations; and d) when my contributions rock.

How many coins I have to pay to create something depends on its qualities.

What you're having trouble with is: how many coins do I have to pay to create something?

What you have in mind is: a big list of qualities-of-things with their associated costs.  Like: if it's big, it costs +1, and if it's real big, it costs +2.  If it's speedy, it costs +1, but if it's slower than would really be convenient, take 1 off the cost.

Am I on?

If so, I can see where you're having trouble.  Assigning costs that way doesn't make any sense, so trying to do it is going to be troublesome.  What you'll have to do is fudge and wing it, then re-fudge and re-wing, until you have costs that suit your group.  You'll never be rid of nagging holes and inconsistencies, and other groups will automatically think you're on crack.

So that's your choice, as I see it: fudge and wing it, or find a different way to assign costs.  Here are my two questions: a) which?  I can offer some input if you choose the latter, but the former leaves me cold.  b) Have you played Universalis?

-Vincent

[RobMuadib]

Dang, Rob.  I know you're asking about substance not
style, but I can't read through your metaphor!

Care to expand a bit on what you find problematic/opaque/confusing?

Tell me if I get it:
I pay coins to create things.

You pay coins to introduce them, and that is not exactly true. Generally
you bid coins to become the narrative guide who gets to introduce entities
for free. You would pay if you introduced something into the current
narrative guides' scene. In short, essentially correct.

I get coins a) for fulfilling my duties as a player; b) when other people
use my creations; c) when I play my character(s) according to others'
expectations; and d) when my contributions rock.

How many coins I have to pay to create something depends on its
qualities.

What you're having trouble with is: how many coins do I have to pay to
create something?


What you have in mind is: a big list of qualities-of-things with their
associated costs.  Like: if it's big, it costs +1, and if it's real big, it costs
+2.  If it's speedy, it costs +1, but if it's slower than would really be
convenient, take 1 off the cost.

Am I on?

Umm, not exactly. I was going to put in a complete point design system
for Personae, plus an equipment/vehicle construction system. This would
all be very much similar to the way Hero leverages it's power design
system to define different entities (Characters, vehicles, weapons, armor,
gadgets, etc.) So I wouldn't call it a list of qualities of things. More like, I
want to introduce a 75 point Personae, or a 50 point vehicle into the
narrative. The points giving a ball-park combat effectiveness kind of feel
for the potential impact of it's actions within the narrative environment.

If so, I can see where you're having trouble.  Assigning costs that way
doesn't make any sense, so trying to do it is going to be troublesome.  
What you'll have to do is fudge and wing it, then re-fudge and re-wing,
until you have costs that suit your group.  You'll never be rid of nagging
holes and inconsistencies, and other groups will automatically think you're
on crack.


So that's your choice, as I see it: fudge and wing it, or find a different
way to assign costs.  Here are my two questions: a) which?  I can offer
some input if you choose the latter, but the former leaves me cold.  b)
Have you played Universalis?

To answer the easy one first, I own Universalis, but haven't played it. For
the second I am not sure we are seeing the same things. If you mean I
am going to put together a Heroesque Point cost system to construct
entities with, then yeah, I am. Perhaps you could expand a bit on what
you see as alternatives. The game is essentially in many ways supposed
to work like Universalis was originally envisioned or so I have gathered
from Ralph.


best

[lumpley]

So... I can write up a character, but I only pay for her if I introduce her when someone else is the GM?  If I'm the GM, I can introduce her for free no matter how many coins she'd cost?  Is that right?

Is there a difference between a Hero-esque point cost system and a GURPS-esque point cost system?  I'm not familiar with the workings of Hero.

For alternatives, what I'd suggest is: don't write up page upon page of "this trait costs this much."  Instead present a rule for arriving at costs, illustrate it with a bunch of examples, and turn it over to the players to implement.

I see a couple of possibilities off the top of my head: a) giving the point costs over to the players outright or b) basing the point costs solely on mechanical resolution, not on the traits' content.

Giving the point costs over to the players might look like this:  I design a character with a bunch of traits.  I bring her to the group: "here's my new character, how much should I pay for her?"  Then we formally but socially set her cost.  Maybe we bid for her, maybe we go around the circle bumping her cost up or down, maybe I suggest a cost and everyone who thinks it's too low gets to contribute badness to her.

Basing the point costs solely on mechanical resolution, not on the traits' content might look like this:  I design a character with a bunch of traits.  I spend 50 points on her, which means that over the course of a session I'm allowed 50 pips worth of dice on her behalf (5d10, or 5d6+2d10, or 2d12+2d8+1d10, for instance), provided I can justify their use by her traits.  I could spend 80 points on the exact same character and get more dice for her in action, not more or better traits.

(There are a bazillion different ways that you might actually implement either approach, so don't let my examples - "50 points = 50 pips of dice"? WTF? - prejudice you.)

So:

Is "don't make a list, make a rule" a direction you'd be willing to explore?

If so, do either of "turn costs over to the players" or "base costs on resolution, not content" seem cool, or would you rather try to find other approaches?  I'm sure there are some.

-Vincent

[Andrew Norris]

Hi,

I agree with Vincent here. In a system with shared narration, it seems that trying to balance characters based on some up-front accounting scheme isn't actually balancing anything. I say that because I might introduce a character like Aquaman, who's very powerful under the ocean, and when the narrator's role shifts the action might move onto dry land, making those points I spent useless. In other words, I think effects-based points balancing doesn't translate into consistent effectiveness across narrators. (Yes, I know Hero handles this by assigning point breaks, but how do you calculate the likelihood of a limitation coming up and balance it across multiple GMs?)

What about something like Universalis or FATE, where you pay for an attribute based not on how objectively powerful it is, but how often it comes into play. So my Gandalf character doesn't have to have all his points allocated into some big fireball spell, because he could do it, but in practice it's only going to come up during one climactic scene.

FATE also goes a bit further and assigns every attribute the same cost, so you'd pay as much to have three points of Loves Susie or Drunkard as you would three points of Master Swordsman. It does that because in the course of play, the action might hinge on any of those equally. I don't think you can get that effect from a list-and-table system.

Of course if your design goals are such that you want the Hero system style of crunchy Sim character creation, then you should go with that. It just seems kind of at odds with the shared narration and creation goals of the game to make each such instance of creation require play to stop while the player calculates up the cost of the new character.

[RobMuadib]

So... I can write up a character, but I only pay for her
if I introduce her when someone else is the GM?  If I'm the GM, I can
introduce her for free no matter how many coins she'd cost?  Is that right?

That's essentially correct, though there are the production scripts(part of
the production bible as to what kind of stuff is kosher) as constraints,
along with the approval of the other players in that they could challenge
your contribution to the narrative.

Is there a difference between a Hero-esque point cost system and a
GURPS-esque point cost system?  I'm not familiar with the workings of
Hero.

Not a whole lot, more pure effectiveness based costs in Hero and heavier
emphasis on modeling things from the effects templates of the powers. It
is more abstract and more mechanical than GURPS' realistic modeling feel.

For alternatives, what I'd suggest is: don't write up page upon page
of "this trait costs this much."  Instead present a rule for arriving at costs,
illustrate it with a bunch of examples, and turn it over to the players to
implement.


So:

Is "don't make a list, make a rule" a direction you'd be willing to explore?

If so, do either of "turn costs over to the players" or "base costs on resolution, not content" seem cool, or would you rather try to find other approaches?  I'm sure there are some.

Currently, I don't see either as potentially working for my system.

My goals/vision of the system has it much more as a kind of detailed
modeling clay of traits and effects, a list, that the players develop
knowledge of and use to create cool entities which they hope to see used
in the game, by having them introduced into the narrative. Why I mention
Hero is that making stuff up for hero is figuring out how to model the
specific abilities of a character for the game using the Hero rules. I
imagine similar process for my game.

What I am concerned with is the systems I propose creating going to
work well to deliver the feel of the game. I am thinking out loud a bit in
that I am trying to decide if the systems I propose creating are going to
provide the right feel.

One thought that occurs to me is that it is not so much the cost of the
traits I am worried about as it that the traits be defined mechanically so
the entity can be "played with" and put through it's paces within the
narrative environment. So working out the specifics of a character's
weapon, for instance, would be important to see it work within the game
world.

That's part of how I envision the game thrust. I see play between
sessions being an important thing to the players. Each of them taking
advantage of the design architecture to develop various entities to be
used, or made available for use within the narrative environment. Part of
is investing an imaginative element with a mechanical reality you can play
with within the confines of the game. I see the players working and
building their particular entities much like a miniatures gamer would paint
and prepare his models for the weekends game. So the design
architecture is important to my vision of the game as I see it working.
Which is significantly different than most any game out there I guess.
(Only thing that comes close is Rune and way players prepare and run
encounters for each other.)


So I guess I am trying to form a clearer picture of what I will need the
design architecture to do to support my vision of the game.

Best

[RobMuadib]

Of course if your design goals are such that you
want the Hero system style of crunchy Sim character creation, then you
should go with that. It just seems kind of at odds with the shared
narration and creation goals of the game to make each such instance of
creation require play to stop while the player calculates up the cost of the
new character.

The shared Narration is more like half of the thrust of the game. The
narrative planning and creation of game entities, world background and
such is about half of the thrust of the game. The idea is to provide a
common modeling kit for each player to construct the game entities from,
with the shared creation being rewarded. The shared narration is to allow
for the action of the narrative to have equal influence from all of the
players and give each the chance to introduce their cool toys (designed
by the design architecture) into the game world.


Like I said I am trying to envision the elements I will need to build up to
bring my vision of the game to life. In many ways my game is the DAS
version of Universalis. It focuses on prepatory work and the creation of a
communal fantasy world among the players. One in which the Narratives
serve as a means to explore the world and entities created. Universalis is
the design in play spontaniety, mine is the design at start staging of an
adventure.

Hopefully that gives you some idea of what I want the system to do.
Something that is easy for me to forget when trudging through writing up
a section of the rules.

best

[lumpley]

Hey Rob.

a) You're having trouble making a list, but b) only a list will do.

Got me, man.

There's a Lynda Barry cartoon where Arnold is making the world's most complete list of everything and Arna is suggesting things.  She says: "Ping pong balls?" and he says: "Got it."  "Tire Irons?" "Got it."  "Alfred from Batman?"  "Oh yeah."

-Vincent