Triad - Just another RPG...

[joe_llama]

Hi again,

I know I haven't even passed 10 posts in this forum, so this next message is kind of a bold move on my side.

I just finished reading James V. West's 'The Pool' and 'The Questing Beast' games. I know, I know - it's a sin to be on this forum and not read them, so I did.

To be perfectly honest, they are two of the best RPG's I've ever seen. James, you have earned my utmost respect - *joins his hands and bows deeply*

In fact, 'The Pool' reminded me so much of my own system which I've been using for the last couple of years. So, in gratitude for exposing me to your game, I will unveil my system, called Triad.

There is nothing very special about Triad. To be more accurate, it has nothing you Forgefolk haven't seen yet. But it's a solid, troupe-style, narrative system and my group had not complained about it once in the last 2 years of our gaming together. (maybe I'm so intimidating they're afraid to talk? hmmm.... its possible....)  

OK, I made a temp page for it. Here's the link:

http://www.geocities.com/gobatwing/triad_rpg.html

The only thing I ask in return is feedback.

This is not aimed particularly at James (who may decide to ignore this altogether), but to all who can spare a few moments to review the system.

Just tell me what you think.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Paganini]

I know I haven't even passed 10 posts in this forum, so this next message is kind of a bold move on my side.

Bah! My first post to the forge contained a game. What else are we here for but to talk about them?

Besides, with a name like Joe Llama, how could we not be filled with awe? :)

About the game... I like it! But I have a couple of minor suggestions. for one thing, I don't like rolling 1d6 much. d6 are so flat that they just sort of go "thunk" on the table when you throw them. I suppose they're just as random as any of the other dice, but they don't FEEL that way. I don't like the feel a 1d6 roll brings to the game, even if it's perfectly acceptable mathematicaly. So I suggest using a d12 or a d20 (they make the best single rollers IMO, because they're rounder). All you have to do is remap your chart to the new die type, like this:

d12

 1      Catastrophic failure
2 - 5   Failure
6 - 7   Partial/Mixed outcome
8 - 11 Success
12     Outstanding success 

And so on for d20.

Also, this way a catastrophic failure / success is something that you can actually roll every so often, without needing special modifiers from the GM.

Other than that, it looks pretty nice. I think the actual play information you give is a really good idea.

Just one thing... lose the white on black! ARGGGH!

:)

[joe_llama]

Thanks Paganini for replying so quickly.

with a name like Joe Llama, how could we not be filled with awe? :)

Ah yes, it is a nickname as old as my 2E Player's Handbook :)

for one thing, I don't like rolling 1d6 much. d6 are so flat that they just sort of go "thunk" on the table when you throw them. I suppose they're just as random as any of the other dice, but they don't FEEL that way. I don't like the feel a 1d6 roll brings to the game, even if it's perfectly acceptable mathematicaly. So I suggest using a d12 or a d20 (they make the best single rollers IMO, because they're rounder). All you have to do is remap your chart to the new die type

Actually, the original mechanics were not based on any specific die but on a generic range. It looked something like this:

< min   Catastrophic falure
< mid   Failure
= mid   Partial/mixed
> mid   Success
> max  Outstanding success

min = minimum of gaming die (usually 1)
mid = divide gaming die by 2
max = maximum of gaming die (in d6 this means 6)

Also, this way a catastrophic failure / success is something that you can actually roll every so often, without needing special modifiers from the GM.

The philosphy behind this decision was: "simple actions give simple results - the fun lies in the extremes". Besides, Karma is more interesting this way because it gives the player some control over the story/adventure.

Just one thing... lose the white on black! ARGGGH!

Done. Finito.

Funny thing is, I never liked that design anyway. So why did I even use it? Silly mistake, I suppose :)

Thanks again.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Laurel]

I like it, particularly the writing style itself.  Simple and coherent, which makes it easier for starting gamers to follow the process.   There's nothing that really connects a character's important aspects to the rules of action or conflict though.  Even if there's no game mechanic that directly uses aspects to modify the rules of action/conflict, there should be some advice/suggestions for the players on how to incorporate them together... encouraging them to "flavor" the manner in which they succeed or fail with their aspects and their details.  With the attention that is provided for metagame concerns in Part III, it makes sense to offer something similar that specifically helps players to use their aspects and description in story-creating, plot-creating, action/conflict relating ways.  
All in all, I think its a really promising little system, not all that dissimilar from what I'm personally working on.

Laurel

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry to disagree, but what I see here is rules lite Simulationism. Rules lite does not equal Narrativist. Your admonition not to play with player knowledge, and lack of any particularly Narrativist mechanics amongst other things make for a very typically Sim design.

I think that it may be the lightest Sim design I've ever seen, FWIW. Might be easy to drift to Narrativism from it.

I like your Player and Guide responsibilities. Lots of good common sense advice there.

Mike

[Laurel]

I'll echo what Mike just said.  After reading his post, I went back up and read your introduction and agree that I wouldn't call this a narrativist system, even though it could drift there easy enough.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1149 and Ron's post there is one of the most readable and understandable things regarding the most significant separation between sim-oriented and nar-oriented systems that  I've seen.  

I would say that this game, as written,  relies on players imagining being in a story, or setting, or situation, as the first priority.  The narrative focus on characters as a tool to further the goal of story-creation as a priority is definately missing, as are any mechanics to provide for that.  

Laurel

[James V. West]

Hey, joe!

First, thanks a heap for reading my games. I appreciate the comments.

I just found the post, and I don't have time to read your stuff tonight. I promise to give you some feedback on it tomorrow.

[joe_llama]

Wow. So many things to say, so little time:

To Laurel:

Simple and coherent, which makes it easier for starting gamers to follow the process.

One of the reasons Triad is so easy to digest is that everything in the game revolves around the number three (for all of you who were wondering why the game is called 'Triad').

Can you tell how many occurrences of 'threeishness' are there in the system? It's a little game I played with my group, and amazingly they found more results than I did!  

Even if there's no game mechanic that directly uses aspects to modify the rules of action/conflict, there should be some advice/suggestions for the players on how to incorporate them together...

I agree with you. Many clarifications and examples were included in earlier versions of Triad, but I took them out to emphasize simplicity. I see now that they were an important part not to be omitted. It will take some time to integrate those lost parts back into the system, but it's feasible.

In spite of the above, something very interesting happened during the development of Triad (I think, Laurel, that you would find this story very interesting) :

I had the privilege of testing Triad on groups other than my regular group. Most of these groups were composed of people with very little or no expereince in role playing games. Many times, it was amazing to see that failing to mention the difference between 'good' and 'bad' aspects during character creation (a common sight in many systems) actually produced very interesting characters with all kinds of benefits and hindrances. The testers never thought of 'cheating' the game or building a powerful character. By telling them the game was about telling stories, they came up with characters full of conflicts, tragedies and emotions.  

We sometimes forget, as gamers, that we have a background of gamist experience and 'balancing' systems. When we finally feel like playing a 'story-oriented' game, we still try to 'power-up' and 'balance' our characters. (I apologize for sloppily using certain terms. I still find it difficult to invoke GNS terms in a coherent manner).    
     
My somewhat strange conclusion was: 'Failing to mention a problem might actually help to prevent it'.

To Mike and Laurel:

Sorry to disagree, but what I see here is rules lite Simulationism. Rules lite does not equal Narrativist. Your admonition not to play with player knowledge, and lack of any particularly Narrativist mechanics amongst other things make for a very typically Sim design.

I'll echo what Mike just said. After reading his post, I went back up and read your introduction and agree that I wouldn't call this a narrativist system, even though it could drift there easy enough.

Ron's post there is one of the most readable and understandable things regarding the most significant separation between sim-oriented and nar-oriented systems that I've seen.

Thanks Mike for noticing and thanks Laurel for linking the post. I see now the error of my ways :)

Seriously though, I've read through the sim vs. nar post, Jesse's 'Narrative Mindset' and (re-read) Ron's GNS article. I finally realized today that all this time I was just another simulationist in a sea of simulation. Hey, you learn something new every day :)

(As a side note, the word 'simulationist' makes me somewhat itchy, as if I'm doing something wrong, you know? It's such a harsh word. Speaking in Planescape jargon, I prefer the word 'Sensate')
 
I guess Triad is sim-oriented after all. It's not that sad, really. Sim-oriented games are a lot of fun. Even better, there's a whole world of RPG's I haven't met yet!

Come to think of it, isn't my discovery of Narrative-oriented games makes me an explorationist? :)

Back to the subject at hand, I admit of making the mistake calling my system Nav-oriented. I hope that the gods of the Forge, in their divine benevolence, will forgive my ignorant and pitiful being. But what I really need is feedback about system content.

Is there anything wrong with the system? Things that require clarification or elaboration? Give me some criticism! (the last word sounded more like 'masochism', did it not?)  

Thanks again everyone.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, you shouldn't feel bad about a Simulationist apellation for your game, per se. The question is do you really have story as a driving design goal. If so, then the system has a problem. One that might be solved by such things as Laurel's suggestion, as well as many other types of mechanics.

Anyhow, until we know your goal, it's hard to critique. What I will say is that a system this light does lean on the players and GM to drive the game. This can be good or bad itself, depending on circustances. Simple generic systems are not uncommon, however. How would you say this system impoves upon, say, FUDGE, or other similar games?

Mike

[Logan]

..

[Laurel]

<Many times, it was amazing to see that failing to mention the difference between 'good' and 'bad' aspects during character creation (a common sight in many systems) actually produced very interesting characters with all kinds of benefits and hindrances. The testers never thought of 'cheating' the game or building a powerful character. By telling them the game was about telling stories, they came up with characters full of conflicts, tragedies and emotions.

You were right; I did find all of this really interesting.  In fact, I put this in my "food for thought" corner of my brain :)  

One big thing to comment on (and you'll see it all over the place here on the Forge) is that there's nothing wrong with Sim-oriented games, Gamist-orieinted-games, blah blah or Sim-oriented players, Narrative players, Gamist players.  No group is "better" or "worse", just distinctly different even though they have varience within them and some elements incorporate easily with a different game style.

The purpose of separating gamers and systems into these three categories is to help unhappy players/GMs find systems and groups of fellow players that support the same underlying goal, because this will greatly facilitate 'fun'.  Its not the "surefire 100% solution to having a super-dooper  game every single time you play" but I'm convinced that it sure paves the way towards enjoying RPing again for people who are
unhappy with their existing sytem or game group.

As for the name- as a matter of fact, I started looking for Triads within it and was impressed and pleased at how deeply the archetype of a "Triad" is maintained by the system itself.  

Laurel

[joe_llama]

To Mike:

The question is do you really have story as a driving design goal. If so, then the system has a problem.

Well, my answer will probaly surprise you but it's a definite YES, even with the current rules. Let me repeat that - even with the current rules. After reading GNS articles and narrative related posts all day, a new perpective began to form in my mind but it is far from being coherent. This perspective better fits a different thread, so I'll speak no more of it for now. Check the 'RPG Theory' forum in the next couple of days.    
 

What I will say is that a system this light does lean on the players and GM to drive the game. This can be good or bad itself, depending on circustances.

True. This system requires 'good' players and 'good' GM's in order to run properly. How to be 'good' is outlined in part III, but maybe it's still too abstract. As you say, the system is so light most of the game relies on pure common sense. But what if someone doesn't have common sense? Or maybe his/her common sense is different than mine? So far, I've been ignoring these folks - the system was made for personal use, it was never meant to be published.

How would you say this system improves upon, say, FUDGE, or other similar games?

Well, without being too humble, there are a few advantages to Triad:

(1) Learning three rules is much easier than any higher number (say four rules, for instance).

(2) It's possible to go through a session without uttering a single number (part of my repulsion from other systems is the obsessive use of numbers of any kind).

(3) By using three as a basic structure for the game, it is much easier to read and remember. In fact, after reading it just three times, you may never need to read it again :)  

(4) Characters are not 'tainted' by mechanics. Let me explain why this is good: It encourages a higher level of player assimilation into the character (getting into character) and into the game - the player is forced to imagine the scene rather than letting the numbers do the 'tedious' work for him/her. In fact, players become involved in everything that's going on instead of hiding their creativity behind numbers. In the same manner, character aspects are uniform in attitude instead of being divided into advantages, disadvantages, skills, etc. There are many cases of aspects which tend to fall 'in between' predefined groups and disappear or generate excessive mechanics. This uniformity serves to increase freedom of chracter design and prevent such events.

(5) All three rules give results but they do not give descriptions. This means that both players and GM's have the opportunity to 'fill in the blanks' in their own special way.

(6) The Rule of Action is made of only one scale, and even that is subtle. In GURPS and similar systems, you have two scales to work through: The player scale ('Terrible' to 'Superb') and the challange scale ('Trivial' to 'Absurd'). The combination of the two gives you a target number to roll a die against. First, absolute scales bring no end of trouble - as soon as your game runs into some extreme situation, the system starts to grow new branches called 'optional rules'. Secondly, is it really necessery to go through two scales to get the difficulty rating you want? How about putting the two scales together and measuring difficulty relative to the conditions at hand? What you have now is just one simple and relative modifier. As for being subtle, you will notice such a modifier is mentioned only once in the rules - this is based on my assumption that 'Failing to mention a problem might actually help to prevent it'.  

(7) The Rule of Conflict is not only very simple, but IMO also far more dramatic than any other conflict resolution mechanics I've seen so far. Explaining why would waste time and be generally ineffective - try it and see for yourself.    

(8) The Rule of Karma is simple and direct. It does not deal with numbers (like bonus or damage increase). It does not confuse a gamer with different costs for different options (e.g. 3 points for automatic success and 0.25 points for every HP reduced from damage). In addition, Karma can have multiple purposes in the same game, such as luck, destiny, and faith.  

(9) Half the system is completely dedicated to 'how to make the most of role playing'. While there is nothing new about it for a veteran, it is part of the basic rules and not some optional appendix at the end of the rulebook.

Whew! I feel like a politician under interrogation defending his office. (just a general feeling Mike, nothing personal)

Again, the bad thing about this system is that it totally relies on 'good' players and GM's. I can only thank my lucky star that my group handles it so well.

Due to this realization, I will re-define the game concept into: 'Mechanics-light system suitable for Narrativists who wanna take a break once in a while and play a good Sim'  :)

Thanks again for the helpful comments, Mike.

To Logan:

Triad doesn't have a direction, a premise, or a goal. It's not about anything. That's not bad, but it means your game is not a game yet.

It was never meant to be beyond that. In fact, Triad was designed in such a way that whenever my group wanted to play in a different setting, it would be as easy as opening a book and reading it.

If you want the Narrative touch, give the player the power to change the situation (1 karma), introduce a subplot (2 karma), introduce a major plot or goal (3 karma).

See advantage no. 8 above for an adequate response.

To Laurel:
   

One big thing to comment on (and you'll see it all over the place here on the Forge) is that there's nothing wrong with Sim-oriented games, Gamist-orieinted-games, blah blah or Sim-oriented players, Narrative players, Gamist players. No group is "better" or "worse", just distinctly different even though they have varience within them and some elements incorporate easily with a different game style.

I know that. I stopped looking for the best system in the world when I came up with Triad. Not because I think it's the best system ever, it just made me realize that what I needed all along was a system specifically tailored to me and my group. Realizing I was a Sim all these years didn't come as a bad thing - it showed me where I (and Triad) stand in the world of RPG's. It's nice to know where you are, don't you think?

I started looking for Triads within it and was impressed and pleased at how deeply the archetype of a "Triad" is maintained by the system itself.

You have to share your findings with me. I want to know what a person with 15 years of Tarot experience would come up with :)
 

Everybody, keep those feedbacks coming in, I can't tell how much this means to me (I'm too sentimental these days...)  

Respect,

Joe Llama



BTW, did you notice that I wrote nine advantages? Nine. That's 3 times 3... *silly giggle*

[joe_llama]

Hi again,

I have updated the page - it looks much better now IMO. I also made a few correctins, mostly bad English and typos (not my mother tongue).

FYI Laurel, the new design has even more Triads hidden inside :)

In addition, I have added a section to part III called 'Being a character - The role of the Player'. It's empty now, but it will eventually contain useful info on how to play a character in the game'.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what should go into this section? I'm still researching the subject, so this would be a good time to throw a lead or two.

Oh yeah one more thing, please inform me of any mistakes or typos that you find in the page.

Thanks in advance.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Mike Holmes]

...there are a few advantages to Triad:

(1) Learning three rules is much easier than any higher number (say four rules, for instance).

Um, sure, but then two would be better, no? Or, rather, what makes three the magic number? Perhaps you're missing one, and just don't realize it. Or one is superfluous. Maybe the game should be Diad.

(2) It's possible to go through a session without uttering a single number (part of my repulsion from other systems is the obsessive use of numbers of any kind).

Is it numbers you don't like or the added complexity of math? FUDGE has a system that doesn't mention numbers (just masks them, really). So is that a problem, or not?

(3) By using three as a basic structure for the game, it is much easier to read and remember. In fact, after reading it just three times, you may never need to read it again :)  

I kinda got that idea from the title, but it never occurred to me as I read through it. Might help some, but I think that forcing symetry for symetry's sake can be dangerous.

(4) Characters are not 'tainted' by mechanics. Let me explain why this is good: It encourages a higher level of player assimilation into the character (getting into character) and into the game - the player is forced to imagine the scene rather than letting the numbers do the 'tedious' work for him/her. In fact, players become involved in everything that's going on instead of hiding their creativity behind numbers. In the same manner, character aspects are uniform in attitude instead of being divided into advantages, disadvantages, skills, etc. There are many cases of aspects which tend to fall 'in between' predefined groups and disappear or generate excessive mechanics. This uniformity serves to increase freedom of chracter design and prevent such events.

Why have any mechanics, then? Why not just Collaboratively Storytell? How do the simple mechanics provide what complex mechanics cannot?

(5) All three rules give results but they do not give descriptions. This means that both players and GM's have the opportunity to 'fill in the blanks' in their own special way.

Again, the system allows the players to do almost anything, but not quite. They cannot mess with a result. Why not allow the players to decide success and failure as well, then? It seems to me that the minimalist argument logically concludes that systems do a bad job of creating events. If this is so, why have any system at all? If you have "good players", won't they be able to decide when to have success and failure as well? If not, how does leaving it to a random roll help?

(6) The Rule of Action is made of only one scale, and even that is subtle. .... As for being subtle, you will notice such a modifier is mentioned only once in the rules - this is based on my assumption that 'Failing to mention a problem might actually help to prevent it'.  

Same problem. Why not just not mention it at all? Then you'll never have any problems. More extensive systems are meant to give Sim players the feeling of Immersion, or exploration. If you feel that your players want that, then that's an argument for more system. If they don't want a system for Immersion, then why have a Simulationist system at all?

(7) The Rule of Conflict is not only very simple, but IMO also far more dramatic than any other conflict resolution mechanics I've seen so far. Explaining why would waste time and be generally ineffective - try it and see for yourself.    

I'd suggest that it's because the GM has a large lattitude in interpereting the results. Everything but success or failure. Why limit him?

(8) The Rule of Karma is simple and direct. It does not deal with numbers (like bonus or damage increase). It does not confuse a gamer with different costs for different options (e.g. 3 points for automatic success and 0.25 points for every HP reduced from damage). In addition, Karma can have multiple purposes in the same game, such as luck, destiny, and faith.  

You keep mentioning players being confused by numbers. Is this very specific to your group? If so, fine. But I don't have a math aversion (in fact I like math a lot). Your examples always seem so funny to me. I can understand a Rolemaster amount of math being distracting, but subtracting three? Or even fractions? There isn't a point at which the numbers are so simple as to be innocuous? If not, then aren't things like notes on paper just as distracting? I'm having trouble sympathizing, as you can see.

(9) Half the system is completely dedicated to 'how to make the most of role playing'. While there is nothing new about it for a veteran, it is part of the basic rules and not some optional appendix at the end of the rulebook.

Way more than half the text. But these are, at best, social contract agreements. They are not mechanics. Which means that they are totally up to interperetation by the players. Which further means that they are just good suggestions on play which make sense in most any game. They are not system. I would import that stuff readily to many games I played, as I said, I like it a lot. But it's not system.

The point? System Does Matter. You can admonish players to play a certain way repeatedly, but the system will either work to produce the results you want, or it will not. Your system does nothing to promote the style of play that your notes suggest, with the possible exception of staying out of the way. And that argument leads us again to the conclusion that no system would be the best way to go.

Whew! I feel like a politician under interrogation defending his office. (just a general feeling Mike, nothing personal)

It's not meant as a personal attack, though I may come off that way. I've just decided to take out my frustrations with light systems on you today. Sorry, you were just at the right place at the right time with the right target. Feel free to ignore the above if you like, it's really more of a statement than an argument. If the system serves you well, then great, that's the most important thing.

But you may want to consider the positive aspects of system. Or consider Collaborative Storytelling instead of RPGs.

Mike

[Logan]

..