NightWorld

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ok, I think I might have a bit of a bad reputation due to numerous bad links and inexperience in forums. I have been working on my rpg NightWorld for quite some time and would like to present it for analysis. I think that it is almost ready for publication. I am happy with it and have playtested once or twice (the playtesters really like the system).

You can find it in my Yahoo Groups displayed in my signature, or I can email the PDF or Word document with fonts to you if you don't want to bother with getting into the group. I will convert to PDF soon.

I would appreciate it if you guys could have a look at it (I know you can tear it to pieces, so go for it. Especially you Mike!).

Thanks,
Kirk

[Mike Holmes]

Have you done any independent playtesting? While personal playtesting is invaluable for finding things that you overlooked in the design, independent playtesting is just as important in order to catch things that you never would catch, and because when a designer playtests they tend to fill in blanks automatically that a non-designer cannot.


Getting down to the details, here's what occurs to me reading through:

The writing needs substantial editing. Not just in terms of spelling and grammar (I assume you're still waiting to do those, because there are a lot of errors), but in terms of making the text more readable. There are a number of problems with how the concepts are delivered. It seems to me that there are a lot of assumptions implicit in the text that need to be spelled out, for instance.

One spelling note - you use the term Sigul repeatedly where Sigil seems to make sense. Is this an intentional misspelling, or is it supposed to be Sigil?

Looking at Delves, the IIEE (the order and manner in which declarations occur) could be cleaned up. For example, it seems that this is the order that things occur in.

1. Player declares a "type" of action, along with characteristic involved.
2. Player draws past cards and selects one.
3. Player declares what the action really is, altering it to fit the selected card.

In 1, why not just have the player select the characteristic? Then he can declare the actual action after the draw. This way he's more inspired by the draw, and not limited as much by the previous declaration of type. Basically, the difference between "type" and the actual action aren't well defined, so why not just drop one of them?

The rift has veto power and should keep things from getting out of control.

Is "the Rift" the GM, or something else? It's not defined, and you use GM elsewhere. From the text, I'm almost sure you mean a GM sort of participant, but it's just ambiguous enough that it might be something else. In any case, a section that states what the Rift is, and what it's purpose is, would be important to include.

Also, the card is noted down so that with due justification, the player can choose to substituted one of their cards for the future card.

This is an ambiguous statement. I'm guessing that it means that a player can select from any of his recorded cards to replace one in a later delve? That's a neat mechanic, but it needs some expansion. I'd give the pool that's recorded a name (destiny pool?). Then do these cards go away when used? Who determines if use of a card is "justified" in a future situation? USing what criteria? I think there's a lot there that's not being said.

In general in the delve, you note that narration should follow the cards, but not who makes those interpretations. That is, who has final say?

Moving on to mundane actions:

Sometimes worse things happen than getting hit. You could get hit and die.

That would be worse if the player died. I assume that you mean that the character might die? It's good to use language that discriminates between the character and the player. This happens a lot in the text, like where you indicate that the character history should link the character to the other "players".

In general, I'm seeing the "mundane" section as somewhat unneccessary. I mean, if it's not worth doing a delve, is it worth doing at all in this game? I mean, combat certainly seems to be important enough to indicated that a delve is neccessary. Then again, the text is very sparse on what should be resolved with a delve, and what should be "mundane." This may be clear to you, but to the reader, it's rather opaque.

In the damage formula, you mention "Base Damage." I seem to have missed where that's determined (it could be the associated stat, but that's problematic given the formula). I worry that it might happen that the defender has a higher stat than his attacker by an amount equal to, or larger than the Base Damage. Either this is likely to be the case occasionally because Base Damage levels are small, or you'll have another problem. The problem with this is that some characters will just not be able to damage other characters. The other problem with large base damages is that given average stats of about 5, that means that characters are going to be out in just one shot when all else is equal. Which would be fine, except that in the case of physical conflicts you indicate that the character dies.

I'm seeing lots of dead characters. All using the "mundane" system of resolution, which seems very anti-climactic.

Chargen:
What's the minimum for a charactersistics? I'm guessing one? Are there any maxima? If the minimum is one, then a player could put 20 points in a single characteristic. Is that OK? Seems out of range with the score for a "balanced" character which is 5.

Atrophy is an odd term the way you use it. As your Atrophy goes down, you near the point where the character has been worn down and the character is lost. Using the term "Rate" only confuses things further. One would expect as Atrophy increased that it would be worse.

For example, if the stat were "endurance" and it went down by a process calles atrophy, that would make more sense. Or, alternately, if you want to keep Atrophy, then have it accumulate instead - start it at 5 minus points from chargen spent on it or something. Then, when it gets to 10, that's when the event occurs.

The nature of what happens when the character has accumulated to much Atrophy isn't really clear. Does the player lose the ability to play the character (seems to be indicated by the Resonance rules), at least until it comes back in a new cycle? How does the character behave at that point? Does the GM play him as an NPC? Or does the character dissapear into the rift or something?

Why can't the character just become "fallen" right away, instead of waiting for a new cycle?

Getting Atrophy points back is similarly unclear. As are the rules for getting resonance. A lot of this material would really benefit from a lot of examples. By one reading of the atrophy regeneration rules, if two PCs spend the envening by the campfire talking, that would get them back a point. Meaning, that if everyone talks to everyone in a group of five, that each character can "degenerate" (those events need to have a name, as well), five times each day, and not worry at all about Atrophy. For the group, that's 25 degeneration events in a game day. Sounds to me like the players can, if they play correctly, just narrate success in everything they do, as long as they just narrate being nice to each other.

What happens if two or more players declare that they are "degenerating" at the same time? Does it go to the first declarer? What if it seems simultaneous? Who narrates? How long is a degeneration event (seems to at least be more than one action long)? Can one narrate such an event as being a calm experience, or does it have to involve mania ("going off the deep end")?

How broad can a trigger for degeneration be? What's appropriate? I mean, I could say that my trigger is "every experience is precious to me," and thus be eligible to degenerate whenever I like. Is this appropriate?

The Resonance "endgame" says that things can change, but "not hugely so." Why can't things change dramatically? Why are the characters only allowed to affect things in small ways? Why can't they save the world? I mean, what if the players don't want to make a new beginning after the end of the last game? Wouldn't it be appropriate at that point to have their character's actions save the world?

Why not allow redeemed characters to be played? I'm guessing that all of this is to try to give players incentives to play the "good" end of the scale - is that the case?

Dreams:
The dream effects table seems to be missing. Do these effects go outside of the dream? If not, then why limit the dream so? Is this just to limit the overall length of dreams so they don't just get narrated on forever?

Rifting:
In the section you mention Dumiriks. Is this a holdover name for the Oddits? What sort of effects might a rift cause? I'm having trouble visualizing this - again an example would be really important here. How long does a rift last, permenantly?

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

Many thank for responding Mike.

Where would I post to ask for independant playtesting (after I clean up the writing methinks)?

Most of the things you picked up were mistakes in the writing.

Sigul is the term that I am most familliar with. Sigil must be the American spelling, in Australia the spelling is based on British spelling.

Looking at Delves, the IIEE (the order and manner in which declarations occur) could be cleaned up. For example, it seems that this is the order that things occur in.

1. Player declares a "type" of action, along with characteristic involved.
2. Player draws past cards and selects one.
3. Player declares what the action really is, altering it to fit the selected card.

In 1, why not just have the player select the characteristic? Then he can declare the actual action after the draw. This way he's more inspired by the draw, and not limited as much by the previous declaration of type. Basically, the difference between "type" and the actual action aren't well defined, so why not just drop one of them?

For 1, that is what I intended. As you said, my wording needs cleaning up. I can see declaring the action after the draw.

Previously, in earlier versions of the game, the GM was known as the Rift. When it was found that my players kept reverting to GM, I decided to change it back. Must have missed one.

The same with Dumirik, I changed the name to Oddits during development because the creatures themselves had changed. Dumirik just didn't seem to be the right name anymore.

The "destiny pool" seems to work. That was what I was planning. Being "justified" should probably be explained as if the later action has something to do with card in the "destiny pool" and the player can justify its usage (using the same criteria as interpreting a delve). A card in the delve can be substituted with this card.

The player taking the action interprets the delve, often discussing quickly with the GM and other players. The GM has final say on the matter.

In general, I'm seeing the "mundane" section as somewhat unneccessary. I mean, if it's not worth doing a delve, is it worth doing at all in this game?

This makes a lot of sense. I suppose that actions not important to warrant a delve could just be narrated (I break the glass. I jump the ledge. etc)

Do I even need a damage mechanic? I suppose that the game could work just fine without it. In one of my playtests, where the two characters were brothers, the cards were interpreted that one of the character's got shot in the stomach. I decided that he wouldn't die, at least not for a while. So the damage isn't really needed now is it?

got to go quickly, will finish the post soon.

[Kirk Mitchell]

When a character dies or succumbs to degeneration, they are no longer playable until the next beginning as a fallen (only if they succumbed to degeneration).

On becoming Fallen:
I wanted to have a sort of continuity to the game. In my playtests, each of the players went through their character in a single session, but at different times. If all the other characters are dead, and one of the characters is fallen, then they would all have to wait if the character immediately began to play as the fallen. I guess a little note describing what a fallen should do after a character succumbs to degeneration for the GM would be good. The idea was that the person has gone through so much that their human side is buried by the trauma. So the fallen then acts like an animal under the control of the GM until the next beginning.

[EDIT]
The minimum of a characteristic is 1. It continues to amaze me how much you have to spell things out. I don't mean to sound rude.

How about I don't allow players to get better? After all, it is about loss. Redemption can be handled as fallen.

A trigger should relate to a specific person or specific desire. I generally encourage players to have their character's trigger relate to others in the party so that they set each other off, trying to save each other.

playing as a redeemed character is an interesting option. Possibly redeemed characters could take on roles later on in other games as mentors or something with dark pasts. Have to think on that...

I haven't actually had time to playtest dreams, but the rules seemed to makes sense. The dream had a limited scope. (the dream effects table hasn't been written yet. <slap! Bad Lama>) And dream effects in there essence extend out of the dream. As dreams are entering the real world, when a character dreams, their dreams also manifest in the real world, through the spending of dream tokens. In a sort of offhand way, this is a form of magic.

[DEDEN]

Sigul is the term that I am most familliar with. Sigil must be the American spelling, in Australia the spelling is based on British spelling.

I wasn't going to post... I tried not to... I really did... I just can't seem to let it go damn it...  

Regardless of where you're from, it's "sigil".  We may pronounce it different to the yanks, but we still spell it the same.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ooookay. Note to me: do not make comments on things unless you really know what you're on about.

Duly corrected. Will change writing.

Kirk

[DEDEN]

Don't worry about it.  Everyone makes mistakes at some point or another.  No doubt someone's going to be have an overly pedantic nitpick about my overuse of periods.....  \=)

[Kirk Mitchell]

HAH! I knew it! I have been TELLING them that it is NOT full stop. It is PERIOD!

Sorry.

Oh, and welcome to the Forge DEDEN. Nice to see some more Aussies around (and semi-Aussies in my case).

[Mike Holmes]

Where would I post to ask for independant playtesting (after I clean up the writing methinks)?

Connections. You're best bet is to trade playtests. Can't find time to do that? Then you'll understand why it's so hard to get people to playtest a game. Designers would like to think that they're doing a favor to the playtesters, but in fact its the other way around.

Previously, in earlier versions of the game, the GM was known as the Rift. When it was found that my players kept reverting to GM, I decided to change it back. Must have missed one.

Five that I counted. Use your "replace" feature.

Being "justified" should probably be explained as if the later action has something to do with card in the "destiny pool" and the player can justify its usage (using the same criteria as interpreting a delve). A card in the delve can be substituted with this card.

The player taking the action interprets the delve, often discussing quickly with the GM and other players. The GM has final say on the matter.

Cool. Should go right into the text.

This makes a lot of sense. I suppose that actions not important to warrant a delve could just be narrated (I break the glass. I jump the ledge. etc)

Do I even need a damage mechanic? I suppose that the game could work just fine without it. In one of my playtests, where the two characters were brothers, the cards were interpreted that one of the character's got shot in the stomach. I decided that he wouldn't die, at least not for a while. So the damage isn't really needed now is it?

Think about combining the two methods into one. I think it's cool to have stats get reduced mechanically. Just make it an outcome of certain delves.

When a character dies or succumbs to degeneration, they are no longer playable until the next beginning as a fallen (only if they succumbed to degeneration).

And the player does what in the meanwhile? I mean for death, he can just quit. But what about a player who loses his character to degeneration, but the other characters continue on for a long time (remember that a character doesn't ever have to degenerate, and death is caused more or less by the GM)? Does he come to the sessions and watch until the cycle ends? Or is keeping it down to one session required?

Again, what's the downside to just starting to play the character as Fallen right then and there? The cycle still ends on the exact same criteria.

The minimum of a characteristic is 1. It continues to amaze me how much you have to spell things out. I don't mean to sound rude.

Not rude at all. Just keep in mind that players coming to play don't neccessarily have the same expectations of what a RPG is like that you may have. Some RPGs allow zero as a valid stat (in some it means average). So, yes, you have to be rigorous about these things.

A trigger should relate to a specific person or specific desire. I generally encourage players to have their character's trigger relate to others in the party so that they set each other off, trying to save each other.

Then why doesn't the text say so? This sort of "I do it this way" stuff needs to be in the text. Examples like this are precisely what the game needs to be comprehensible to an outside reader.


Dreams sound cool, but we'll see what effects you write up.

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ok. I'll start on it over the weekend.

[Kirk Mitchell]

I think that keeping it down to one session would be best. I want a game that has a definite beginning and ending (hence the name of that particular mechanic). The thing about degeneration is the fact that it is very easy for a character to degenerate while it is much harder for a character to achieve redemption. Any thoughts? Maybe the character immediately becomes Fallen, and must attempt to redeem himself before the game ends. The closer the character is to redemption, the better off the character will be. Then that character is there to be played when (or if) another session starts.

And I have a question. What do you think about the emotion mechanics? I want to try to create mechanics that encourage and help the players to flesh out their characters, by having the character's personality have an effect on gameplay. Could it be done better? Does it work at all (it is only a recent addition)?

Thanks for the comments

Kirk

[Mike Holmes]

I think that keeping it down to one session would be best. I want a game that has a definite beginning and ending (hence the name of that particular mechanic).

Sounds good in theory. The problem is that I'm not seeing how to enforce it. Other than to just keep throwing larger and larger baddies at the characters until they're forced to either degenerate or die. But that sorta makes the whole resolutions system pointless, doesn't it?

The thing about degeneration is the fact that it is very easy for a character to degenerate while it is much harder for a character to achieve redemption. Any thoughts?

AFAICT, you can always decide not to use degeneration - it's completely optional. So one never has to go that way if one doesn't want to.  Further, depends on which redemption you refer to. Redemption after a fall seems difficult, yes. But, as it stands, getting your Atophy Rate points back seems to be only as difficult as the GM makes it. Which there are no guidlines on. Like I mentioned above, I see players being able to constantly resolve via degeneration with no repercussions, potentially.

Maybe the character immediately becomes Fallen, and must attempt to redeem himself before the game ends. The closer the character is to redemption, the better off the character will be. Then that character is there to be played when (or if) another session starts.

Not sure what you're saying here. It might be cool, however, if you go with to just have the character be "lost" if they don't get redeemed before all of the PCs are either dead or fallen.

And I have a question. What do you think about the emotion mechanics? I want to try to create mechanics that encourage and help the players to flesh out their characters, by having the character's personality have an effect on gameplay. Could it be done better? Does it work at all (it is only a recent addition)

I think that there isn't that much there, but that's not neccessarily a bad thing. By having these mechanics be the only thing that one can play with to get results in the Delves, I think that it'll definitely bring these things to the fore.

A lot of these are playtest issues at this point, IMO.

Mike

[Bunsen]

I hated it, the entire idea sucked, what were you thinking? I mean really, dear god, ugh!

Just kidding Kirk, love your work.

P.S. I got to school with this guy, I'm not a random stalker. And he' working on a system with me, so go Kirk!

[Kirk Mitchell]

Hi Everybody.

I worked on NightWorld some more, and I think it makes a lot more sense. There aren't any examples yet but they'll be coming. Plus its in PDF! Yay!

I would appreciate some comments.

Kirk

[Andrew Martin]

Hi, Kirk.

I would appreciate some comments.

I had a look at the PDF version. The .doc file was too hard to read with MS Word viewer.

I didn't understand the line of text ending with a question mark on the first page. I think there's a word missing?

The Sigils.PDF file really, really, really needs to be included into the NightWorld PDF.

There really needs to be a page after the first page to introduce the setting. I felt very lost while reading the PDF as I didn't know what was supposed to be happening.

Page 4
Is it the dark secret being revealed that causes the character to loose 4+ Manipulation, or simply having a dark secret, that currently remains a secret?

Why wouldn't successful brain washing reduce Willing to zero?

Hit by a car 6
Seems excessive to me. I've been hit by a car doing 30-40 Km/H, and it was an interesting experience (I ended up with a green stick fracture in one leg, which was cured by a little rest and some bandages). I don't think I've lost more Physique from this incident than being hit by a pistol or rifle shot. Perhaps a guideline, like being struck by a car at "highway speeds" (100Km/H or 50-60MPH), which is usually fatal to pedestrians, though rare?

Are pistols and rifles important in the game? They seem the most effective item in the game to destroy rogue Oddits, (apart from cars...), and NPCs.

Page 5
What's an Oddit?

The damage section on pages 4 - 5 looks like it's in the wrong place.

Page 6
First paragraph: Use "history" not "histories". Or write: "decide on the history of the characters."

Characteristics
Instead of giving minimums, which requires the player to "pay to suck", reduce the starting allocation a bit and give the player the minimum points right from the start. Something like: "Physique, Intelligence, Willing and Manipulation all start at 3, and Sacrifice starts at 2. You have 16 points to add to these characteristics. Each Characteristic has a maximum of ____ (how many?) points.".

I think "Willing" should be changed to "Willpower" or "Will", because it makes more sense and matches the other Characteristics.

Similarly with Core Human Emotions, start the three selected emotions at one each, and let the player distribute three points over these three emotions, with a maximum of _____ (how many?) points.

Belief
If a Belief is shattered, wouldn't the score in Belief drop to zero? It seems strange to merely lower it.

Page 7
What's a "destiny pool"?

Page 9
First paragraph. Can the player play a new "unFallen" character?

Base Instincts seem to include Core Human Emotions, like Anger, Contempt or Malice(otherwise why Fight?), Desire (otherwise why Eat or F***?), Anxiety (otherwise why Flee?).

Page 11
Dreaming
How many timelines are there? Two, three, a hundred?

What are the guidelines or rules on giving out Dream Tokens? I presume it's the GM giving them out to players? One, ten or a hundred dream tokens?

What's the "strength" of an Oddit? The characteristics of an Oddit on the next page don't seem to name "strength"?

Page 12
The characteristics of Oddits seem confused. Is it "Belief" or "Dogma"? Or are they separate characteristics?

If an Oddit is torn apart by being outside a Rift or goes somewhere where people don't believe in it (how far away?), what does it leave behind? Fragments of dream stuff? Squamous ichor? Something else? Or nothing?

Page 13
Why are GM controlled NPCs more powerful and better than PCs? The results of NPC actions "are completely up to the GM's discretion." This seems unfair to players.

Dreams and Oddits seem to have no practical use in the game. Simply don't believe in them and they cease to exist, and their believers turn into practical animals. Is this the intended effect?

If a player chooses to have their PC simply murder other people on sight with a high powered rifle for no particular reason, then this seems to have no appreciable effect in the game on the PC's mental health. This PC will have greater game effectiveness, than a PC who helps other people, a "good guy". Is this intended?