[Evensong] Introduction/Overview

[Lathan]

I'm not really sure how to present this (in spite of lurking for a couple of months now) but I'll do my best...


-----------------------
Basic overview:

Evensong is a surreal, simulation-oriented RPG set in an ever-changing universe which seems equal parts clockwork and divine art.  The premise, such as it is, deals mostly with the constant, subtle change of the characters' world, and particularly how they adapt to these changes and anticipate those of the future.

-----------------------
Setting:

Anything is possible with the setting (gamemasters have an infinite universe to play around in) but it does have a "center": Charos, a bowl-shaped world on the verge of a steampunk-style industrial revolution.  Other worlds and "worldlets" can be reached from there by various means, whether magic, technology, or other ways like traveling through a supernaturally-affected area, a favorite of Earth's medieval stories; however, it's much more difficult to move to Charos from another place.  Gods and other spiritual forces play a major role in the operation of everything, though their actions are usually felt rather than seen.

I intend to write up at least three or four worlds for Evensong before I consider the setting finished enough for release; however, practically all the setting material I have now (and there's quite a bit of it) concerns Charos.  Fitting for the center of the universe, in a way...

----------------------
Character concepts:

Depending on the setting used in the game, players' options for characters will vary.  Characters in Charos, for example, probably won't be studying microbes and virii -- science hasn't advanced to that point yet, the technology level doesn't allow for high-powered microscopes, and most people still consider disease to be caused by errant spirits/imbalances of humours/what have you anyway.  Or in the Deeps, a worldlet consisting of a massive cave system, native characters will likely be nearly blind as what light there is from natural phosphorescence is very, very dim.

Most player characters will be extraordinary in some way -- not in terms of their capabilities, but more in their chosen occupations (let's face it, a baker isn't very interesting to roleplay when there's so much else going on that doesn't involve flour -- though the food industry is bizarre enough that it could work in its own game).  Players can define their characters however they wish, though some minimum compatibility with the rest of the group is expected.  Nobles, crooks, revolutionaries, scientists, priests, soldiers; all of these "archetypes", and more, would work as basic character concepts.  As long as they are interesting and have some motivation, there's no reason they can't be played somehow.

---------------------
Character creation:

Determining a character's abilities is point-based, allowing the player to sketch out the broader lines of the character beforehand.  Background, personality, and motivations come before numbers.  Additionally, any quirks the character has (such as an affinity for machines, a lame leg, nearsightedness from reading philosophy books in dim light) are recorded here and should influence the numbers.

There are three defining capacities for characters: stats, skills, and knowledge.  Respectively, they quantify innate ability, learned ability, and learning ability.  All of them are given in the form "used score/progress score" -- when rolling dice, the player attempts to roll under the used score, taking any bonuses or penalties into account; the progress score measures advancement to the next rank of the used score, when it rolls over to 1 and the used score increases by one.  Both the used score and the progress score are given as percent, 1-100.

Characters get 350 points to buy stats.  If evenly distributed, this gives a perfectly average character (straight 50s across seven stats).

The statistics themselves are:

Strength - short-term muscle power
Endurance - energy and stamina
Dexterity - fine manipulation
Agility - overall speed
Intelligence - learning ability
Awareness - perception, judgement
Personality - force of will

Pretty generic, yes, but then so is the system.


Skills and knowledge are a bit more problematic for me.  There's no way I can compress everything into less than ten categories and have it still make sense; however, going the GURPS route of exhaustively detailing each and every skill doesn't appeal to me either.  I'm considering freeform skills/knowledge (a bit like The Window's skills: write the name and competency level, however you want it) -- it seems the best way to do it.  If so, I intend to keep the same used/progress format and give the same number of points (350) for each category.

However they end up, skills have a governing stat.  A skill cannot be higher than its stat, but points from the statistic may be used to alter rolls (see Resolution, below).

There are no derived values -- no hit points, no mana.  Character damage is handled a bit strangely; I'll give it its own section below.

-------------------
Resolution:

Percentile dice are used to resolve pretty much everything.  1d10 x 10 + 1d10, or 1d100 if you're into buying weird dice like me.

Characters' order of movement in resolving anything is by their Agility scores, or Awareness if that is called for instead (I leave it up to the GM).

The base target number for a roll is one of the character's capacities; whether stat, skill, or knowledge depends on the task.  The GM is free to modify this (as long as it makes sense).  Rolling under the target indicates success.

Here's the catch: the character's stats are also used as currency.  By temporarily giving up two stat points, a player can drop his roll for the stat or relevant skill by one -- but doing so is risky, especially if the character may need to do something similar later.  Points only regenerate during downtime, when the character is not being physically, mentally, or emotionally challenged.  Additionally, if Agility is spent, the character's place in line to act may change.  It might be best to represent this by seating arrangement, but playing "musical chairs" like that could get tiring.

Opposed checks are simply a matter of each character rolling his appropriate stat/skill/knowledge (they can still spend stat points to alter their rolls).  If both succeed, reroll until one succeeds and the other fails, or both fail.  The victor is allowed to narrate the outcome.

Combat proceeds similarly to other conflicts in the game -- that is, everyone takes turns in the order of highest Agility (or Awareness, should the GM consider that more important) to lowest.  Movement during a character's turn is possible, though little distance can be covered -- the Agility stat, in inches (so a full 100 Agility character could dash eight feet, four inches).  Turns are fast.  And the actual whacking things is done by a simple opposed check.

Since the damage system is location-based, the attacking character declares where he's attempting to hit.  He and the intended victim make an opposed check -- the attacker with his weapon/technique skill; the defender has the option to use his Agility to dodge or his own martial skill to parry.  Since the head and neck are extremely vulnerable and their defense is instinctive, the defender always gets a bonus to defend those areas; however, if the roll by itself would not succeed, he takes the damage to his dominant arm instead.

-------------------
Damage and Death:

Evensong isn't really combat-focused; however, with the worlds' constant changing, you can't be too careful.  Bad things will happen to characters whether or not they seek them out (however, if they do go looking for trouble, chances are they'll find a lot more of it than they thought).  The mechanics for combat are rather sketchy; damage, on the other hand, can get pretty intricate (and gruesome).

Every implement designed to do nasty things to people (and even those that aren't intended to, such as falling boulders) is given a pool of dice for damage.  And every hit location has a list of stats which are damaged by a hit there.  For instance, a sword may be listed as 1d10, 1d8, 1d4; and the head lists its affected stats as Perception, Personality, Agility, and Intelligence.  A sword strike to the head, then, would apply the dice in order -- 1d10 Perception damage, 1d8 Personality damage, 1d4 Agility damage, ignoring extra stats or dice.  The victim notes the changes to his stats, and then totals the damage and rolls on a table to see what happens.

Each location has a hit table (actually three, for slashing, crushing, and piercing damage), divided into ranks of severity.  Below 10 points of damage is always minor cuts, bruises, and scrapes.  Above that, the table is divided into "ranks" of ten points: so for 11-20 slashing damage, you roll on one subtable; 21-30, another; and so on.  The effects escalate in severity -- while 11-20 on the head might take out a tooth or swell an eye temporarily shut, 21-30 points could cut off an ear, knock out the character, break his nose, or (rarely) cause immediate death; 31-40 points would wreck an eye or sever tendons in the jaw, and have a greater chance of unconsciousness or death; and over 40 points to the head always kills.

Damage escalates -- if a character has taken five hits on one damage level at this location, if he takes enough damage to roll again, he must instead roll on the next higher.  Combat-oriented characters are time bombs this way; if they keep fighting without using downtime to recuperate, they will die.  Hacking through hordes of enemies Gauntlet-style doesn't work well in this system.

When a character rolls badly on one of the higher damage tables, is hit with enough force to go over the maximum not-always-lethal damage, or if all his stats are reduced to zero, he dies.  Death is final -- while necromancers may be able to raise the spirit for a short time or animate the corpse, there's no true coming back.

------------------
Reward/Privilege:

Players can gain narration privileges in several ways; most of them depend on the specific setting, though.  Sorcery, alchemy, and technology are the big three in Charos; minor charms and cantrips like the "Bloody Mary" ritual some of you have probably heard of (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/bloody.htm if you haven't) are essentially universal, but have little overall effect.

Before the player gets to narrate, he has to come to an agreement with the gamemaster: the player explains what he intends to do, the GM sets conditions that he must meet first, anything from an epic quest to find obscure relics to simple skill rolls; little magic charms like Bloody Mary are handled as one Personality stat check.  After these conditions are fulfilled, the player takes over narration of what happens.  If he deviates from the agreement with the GM -- for instance, an alchemist experimenting with transmutation suddenly declaring that he wants to create a golem with the fruits of his research without saying anything about this before -- narration is forfeited to the GM.

Characters can improve their capacities (that's what the progress score is for).  However, there are some differences in the way they can be raised.  Stats can only improve during downtime, when the character isn't being challenged (much), and only through specific training.  Skills improve with use -- if the player succeeds in a skill check with modifiers making it harder, he gains a point in his progress score.  Knowledge can be improved in downtime or by successful use of a research skill.






My biggest question right now is what to do with skills and knowledge.  I don't want lists, but the freeform "write your own in" system has its own pitfalls -- mostly in that it's too generic.  If one player buys the knowledge type "architecture" and another "tower architecture", or one a "bashing things to bits" skill and another "stave fighting" (same principle, but much more specific), how is the difference between the two to be reconciled?  I don't think making the more specific one cheaper would work, as it'd be a lot of work for the GM to come up with changes for every skill.  And is the skill advancement too easy, at one progress point for every difficult roll?  Any advice on these would be welcome.

Aside from that, any other thoughts or comments?  I realize this isn't going to be perfect, but I can try...


Gordon Fay

[Ben Lehman]

I think that, before you work on skills and knowledges, you ought to take a long, hard look at your resolution mechanic.

First of all, define whether the points are spent before or after the roll.

Second of all, really consider if the average person fails in any action %50 of the time.  I mean, I usually succeed in everything I do -- I don't mistype half my characters, and I don't mispell half my words.  It is only really rare times when failure becomes a possibility at all, and then it is mitigated failure -- often a case of "it didn't quite work out, but you pretty much get it right."  For a sim-focused game, this seems key.  Consider allowing a pool of points, equal to the stat, that can be spent after the roll, and do not diminish the stat at all.

Thirdly, I'd look at some way to bring your mechanics and setting more in line.  You have this very cool steampunk multiple worlds color, and then I look at the mechanics and go "eh."  If the mechanics could tie into the color some more that would be great.  How about giving characters an "idiom" (based on their home world / area) which they can draw on if they are using it to solve the problem?

Fourth, how on earth is the *summoning of a vengeful spirit* a minor incantation?  Bloody Mary, in this myth, stems from a Voodun merging of the Celtic Goddess Brigit, the Aztec Goddess Tlazlteotl and, of course, the Virgin Mary -- if summoning her is minor, could you give a major example of magic?

Fifth, the combat system looks somewhat, well, superfluous and complicated.  I'd leave it off until you have a more nailed-down basic mechanic.

yrs--
--Ben

[Lathan]

I think that, before you work on skills and knowledges, you ought to take a long, hard look at your resolution mechanic.

First of all, define whether the points are spent before or after the roll.

Before.  Forgot that bit.

Second of all, really consider if the average person fails in any action %50 of the time.  I mean, I usually succeed in everything I do -- I don't mistype half my characters, and I don't mispell half my words.  It is only really rare times when failure becomes a possibility at all, and then it is mitigated failure -- often a case of "it didn't quite work out, but you pretty much get it right."  For a sim-focused game, this seems key.  Consider allowing a pool of points, equal to the stat, that can be spent after the roll, and do not diminish the stat at all.

Checks are only made for "special" actions -- not for mundane things like typing or standing up.  I think it's reasonable to expect an average person to have a lower-than-90% chance of convincing a skeptical guard that yes, he really does belong behind the security fence.

To me, at least, the idea of diminishing stats makes sense -- if I'm working, I get tired; if I'm studying, I become mentally exhausted over time.

Thirdly, I'd look at some way to bring your mechanics and setting more in line.  You have this very cool steampunk multiple worlds color, and then I look at the mechanics and go "eh."  If the mechanics could tie into the color some more that would be great.  How about giving characters an "idiom" (based on their home world / area) which they can draw on if they are using it to solve the problem?

The mechanics are pretty generic, true.  Could you explain this "idiom" a bit more?  I don't plan on allowing special powers right from the start, but this sounds like it's a bit different.

Fourth, how on earth is the *summoning of a vengeful spirit* a minor incantation?  Bloody Mary, in this myth, stems from a Voodun merging of the Celtic Goddess Brigit, the Aztec Goddess Tlazlteotl and, of course, the Virgin Mary -- if summoning her is minor, could you give a major example of magic?

It's a minor incantation in that it's not very involved or intricate; the way I heard it back in grade school, the only result was a face appearing in the mirror, not the self-destructive version that got more article space from Snopes.  So it doesn't really have a major effect (should've made that clear, too...).  For the bigger stuff, think hermetic magic, alchemy, and witchcraft in medieval times -- augury, conversing with deities, calling storms, transmutation, the Golem of Prague, and so on.  Things which require a lot more research and preparation than talking to a mirror.

Fifth, the combat system looks somewhat, well, superfluous and complicated.  I'd leave it off until you have a more nailed-down basic mechanic.

Combat itself is just a few skill rolls like any other difficult task; the complicated part is damage, and yes, I've been having a few issues with it as well.  Mostly, it's there to simulate what will happen to accident- or combat- prone characters.  The difference between it and other systems will probably take some getting used to, but in the end I think it'll balance simplicity and "realism" fairly well.  Is there anything specific you'd point to as a problem, or is it the existence of a combat system in the first place?


Gordon

[Ben Lehman]

Second of all, really consider if the average person fails in any action %50 of the time.  I mean, I usually succeed in everything I do -- I don't mistype half my characters, and I don't mispell half my words.  It is only really rare times when failure becomes a possibility at all, and then it is mitigated failure -- often a case of "it didn't quite work out, but you pretty much get it right."  For a sim-focused game, this seems key.  Consider allowing a pool of points, equal to the stat, that can be spent after the roll, and do not diminish the stat at all.

Checks are only made for "special" actions -- not for mundane things like typing or standing up.  I think it's reasonable to expect an average person to have a lower-than-90% chance of convincing a skeptical guard that yes, he really does belong behind the security fence.

BL> I do not buy this explanation.  Simply put, failing half the time in a game is dumb and no fun.

To me, at least, the idea of diminishing stats makes sense -- if I'm working, I get tired; if I'm studying, I become mentally exhausted over time.

BL>  Sure it does.  But, at this point in your system, characters have next-to-nothing effectiveness.  The reason I recommended the change was not to improve any sort of realism, but to give characters any effectiveness ever in the whole world.

Thirdly, I'd look at some way to bring your mechanics and setting more in line.  You have this very cool steampunk multiple worlds color, and then I look at the mechanics and go "eh."  If the mechanics could tie into the color some more that would be great.  How about giving characters an "idiom" (based on their home world / area) which they can draw on if they are using it to solve the problem?

The mechanics are pretty generic, true.  Could you explain this "idiom" a bit more?  I don't plan on allowing special powers right from the start, but this sounds like it's a bit different.

BL>  No "special powers?"  What, pray tell, do you mean by that?

 I question why you could possibly want to use generic mechanics.  I don't want to get into a long debate about it here, but suffice it to say that I strongly recommend that you don't.  In fact, I just wrote this to a friend who is *also* designing a steampunk RPG:

What does steampunk mean, to you?  That, and only that, should be your system.

Combat itself is just a few skill rolls like any other difficult task; the complicated part is damage, and yes, I've been having a few issues with it as well.  Mostly, it's there to simulate what will happen to accident- or combat- prone characters.  The difference between it and other systems will probably take some getting used to, but in the end I think it'll balance simplicity and "realism" fairly well.  Is there anything specific you'd point to as a problem, or is it the existence of a combat system in the first place?

BL>  My main point is to settle your basic resolution first, and then rewrite the combat system from scratch if you still think you need one.

If you are really interested in lengthy, chart-heavy combat, may I recommend taking a look at Rolemaster?  If you are interested in fast-paced, exciting, chart heavy combat, may I recommend taking a look at Riddle of Steel?

That is, if you haven't already.

To summarize:
At this point, I think you have a clunky universal system.  It needs to become a smooth, pretty universal system (which doesn't necessarily mean rules-lite), or a smooth, pretty steampunk, multiple worlds system.  I have a predjudice towards the latter, but its definitely personal.

yrs--
--ben

[Lathan]

You've made some good points here.  I'll try to respond with what I've got right now, but I will be looking at possible mechanics changes in a few days (real life intervenes...)

1) A 50% failure rate is actually quite rare, when you take GM-given modifiers into account (barring truly evil gamemasters, of course).  The rank is only the base number to be rolled against.  Trivial tasks aren't rolled; those which aren't trivial will probably be modified higher unless they are actually quite difficult.  This one is probably going to get the most attention for overhauling.

2) The premise involves the characters having to deal with potentially catastrophic change.  You're probably right that stat decay is too fast, even though it can be recovered.

3) Misunderstood "idiom" -- I'd thought you meant some sort of world-based affinity, boost, or power.  The idea of different stat systems for different worlds (if that's what you were talking about) has some appeal, but with the variety of different settings it'd be a pain.

Steampunk is the technology level for Charos, and so far, only Charos.  The two other settings I've fixed on so far have much less detail put into them, but enough for an approximation of the technology.  The Deeps is a troglodyte society still in a warped version of the Stone Age (no way to even see ore, let alone smelt it).  Ikor-An is a world of living machines, far more advanced than Charos technologically but still backwards in other sciences.  Technological spillage is minimal, due to the difficulty of travel between worlds.  That's the reason for more generic mechanics -- wildly different settings.

4) I haven't looked at either of those systems (yet).  I'd intended the combat system to balance detail and speed.  Whether or not it stays in, I don't know yet.  For some settings, it may be useful; for others, not.

Thanks for the help so far... it will probably be changing quite a bit in the future.

Gordon

[failrate]

I'd like to point out that I like your design and disagree with Ben on most of his points.

I like the combat system in that you have the groups of affected skills in each hit location.  If you get hit in the head, your wits are scrambled and you get blood in your eye.  If you're hit in the legs, you lose speed and jumping power, etc.

It makes sense to me.

The same with the exhaustion system (sacrificing points for temporary boosts).  That's a nice gambling mechanic, especially considering successes can end up boosting your player's skills, as I understand.

Stat recovery could be happening any time your characters go to the local gentleman's club for a sherry, or wait on a friend, or stop to make camp, etc.  The fact that they don't know when they'll get a chance to rest creates a nice tension to see how far they're willing to extend themselves.


As far as the complaints that 50% is an unreasonable success rate, this is only assuming that people will put 50 in each stat.  Chances are, people are going to specialize in a group of stats.  A wizard probably won't worry about brute strength, after all.  So, really, characters will often hav 70+ chance of success in one area and 30- in another, which is logical in an RPG mythos.

However, you have a somewhat abstract system for skills and combat, but then you make each point of Agility equal an inch of movement speed.  That's kind of a jarring jump from being very coarse-grained to fine-grained, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to calculate movement to the nearest inch in the midst of combat.

[Lathan]

I'd like to point out that I like your design and disagree with Ben on most of his points.

Thanks.  It's good to hear a little reinforcement.  There are still going to be a couple of changes to the base system (which I've almost ironed out now) but it'll still be recognizable, at least.

However, you have a somewhat abstract system for skills and combat, but then you make each point of Agility equal an inch of movement speed.  That's kind of a jarring jump from being very coarse-grained to fine-grained, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to calculate movement to the nearest inch in the midst of combat.

Good point there.  It will change, I'm not sure with what, but that definitely needs to get replaced.