Symmoira

[Jasper]

A couple of days ago I was hit with this lightning bolt of an idea (or so it seemed anyway) for a new system, and I've done little but work on it. It's called Symmoira, from "symmetry" and "moira" meaning luck. What has me so excited is that I think it's the system I've unconsciously been searching for many times in the past: frequently when I want to drift other systems, it's in this direction.  But Symmoira gives hard and fast rules to what had previously been vague principles behind GM fiat.

What I hope is that Symmoira will provide a big "in" for player creativity and will emphasize larger-than life events: a lot of games saythey're cinematic or about high adventure, but then a character has to bum around killing chickens or trips and kills himself, and if he does do anything significant, it's in very slow iterative steps: which is far too much like real life and not nearly enough like great tales!  Another thing I've found lacking in other games is the handling of the fantastic: either it's reduced down in a scientific way (which a part of me like, being a biology student, but overall that sort of kills it) or it's left all up to the GM, often in an illusionist mode.  Plus, "fantastical" is often restricted to different kinds of badies to kill.  By fantastical, I mean "things wildly outside normal human experience which we find compelling but don't understand."  For instance, in good magic realism novels, people sometimes visit the land of the Fae.  When done well, it's always very otherworldly, not reducible to parts, and not comprehensible to most people.  It's mysterious, and it's powerful.

Symmoira is setting-less, though I plan to put out setting guides (pretty brief things) for: Arabian Nights, Avengers-style Super Spies, Ancient Prophets, Magic Realism...and some others I've probably forgotten.  Don't get the idea that Symmoira is just supposed to be about "magic" things though: really it's about the larger-than-life in general.

----

Okay, I've given enough background and sales pitch.  The core mechanic of the game is as follows:

Conflicts are called "Crises."  Whenever a crisis comes up, the player first describes the "positive outcome" of it.  That is, he describes what his character does, how it works out, and what the immediate results are.  For example, a player might say:

So Bob punches the guy in leather, and then jumps up onto the table to to do a spin kick into his friend's jaw.  They both go sprawling across the room, breaking some bottles and stuff.  The guy in leather's friend is out cold.

The GM then describes a negative outcome, playing off the player's, e.g.:

Well Bob punches the guy in leather, but gets socked himself.  He stumbles over the table and it collapses under his weight.  Just then two more steeley-eyed thugs walk in the door.

Each outcome is then rated on two scales: advantage (or disadvantage for the negative outcome) and likelihood. Advantage says how helpful the positive outcome is to the player's character.  There are several discreet levels with scales.  Each level has a modifier associated with it.  If both outcomes are essentially neutral (just different outcomes to an event), and both are "likely" then there's basically a 50/50 chance of it going either way: the base "chance" is 10, and the player rolls on d20 to see if it goes his way, trying to get under.  

The more advantageous the positive outcome is, the more the "chance" shifts away from the character/player.  Therefore, it's a gamble that he chooses to make: the player can either narrate somethign really helpful, but unlikely, or something of minor use but which is very certain.  It's up to him.  The GM has exactly the same kind of decision: to make the character more likely to succeed with a really horrible failure option, or to have a lesser failure be more likely.  

The likelihood scale affects chance too, but much less.  Outcomes are only "likely," "unlikely," or "very unlikely," and the penalty is fairly small, varying with setting.  Saying "A helicopter flies down and picks me up" -- if not completely outside the bounds of what's reasonable -- is not much more difficult than "I shoot the guy and he dies."

More important than likelihood are "control points" which all players/characters get.  What they mean depends on the setting.  So they could represent will, magical energy, God's favor, fate, whatever.  Basically all they do is push the chance of a positive outcome higher.  Players get them once per session (I'm not sure about that), or can ask the GM to define a worse negative outcome with no chance modifier to get a point as well.

Character abilities, which are somewhat arbitrarily broken down into attributes, abilities, and flaws, also affect the chance, either up or down since they can be positive or negative and default to zero.  They're more important than the likelihood scale, but still (potentially) less important than advantage.

There are, of course, other rules in the game too, surrounding how to apply the main mechanic to different situations, and how to make characters, but that's the heart of it.  A lot of the rules are written of in general terms to be defined later by the setting (kind of like demons in Sorceror).  You can see the whole set of rules (in html) at my site.  I would love to hear responses in general, but I do have a few specific questions as well:

1. Right now the GM defines the scales (likelihood and advantage) for both positive and negative outcomes.  I have an optional rule for allowing the group of players to define the scales for the negative outcome.  What might the advantages and disadvantages of either system be?

2. What should the GM's role be in terms of defining the negative outcome?  I've suggested that he steps into somewhat more adversarial shoes while doing it, but this might very well be a conflict of interest with the more usual job of arbitrator.  Of course, this will obviously depend on play group as well as setting, so what I'm really asking is: what kind of emphasis, in the game text would probably be more beneficial to new players?

3. I'm contemplating getting away from character action as the sole means for introducing crises: instead a player might spend a control point to just start narrating something about the world.  Can anyone foresee any problems with this?

4. I'm thinking that I might need something to string things along some times.  For instance, it's probably not a good thing if a player says "I throw a knife at the evil super villain and he dies wouth revealing his plans.  His whole infrastructure collapses after he's gone."  Too easy.  But are warnings about the other players think appropriate, and perhaps a small guidelines for voicing dissent enough, or do I need more?

I realize that most these questions are a little airy-fairy.  I think I'd like to assure myself that there are no big holes in the game.  Where the write-up iself needs clarified or expansion would also be a big help.

Vale,

[Jasper]

Addendum: I've put up the first of the setting guides. It's still a work in progress, but has most of the meat there.  Called "Our Medieval Fate," it's about time travelling into the Middle Ages.  I'd appreciate any comments on it as well, especially what most immediately needs expansion.  

Read it here.

[Jasper]

I feel guilty posting to my own thread for the second time in a row here, but after a little discussion on RPG.net I have a more precise question to ask.  Before I get to that though, I should note that I've updated the rules since last time -- mostly for better organization and clearer text, but I've also reworked the idea of "likelihood":

Likelihood is now just the sum of modifiers applied to an outcome, and it's old meaning is supplanted by the idea of "plausibility."  But plausibility, which modifies on outome's likelihood, is not defined in terms of real-world, real-physics stuff, but plausibility within the dramatic context.   I.E. it's inappropriate for one or another thing to happen (or to exist) in the given "genre" (using that word loosely).  So plausibility is comes in the form of numerous setting "precepts" which each define some condition that is either favored or disfavored by the rules by a certain amount.  Frex, "characters don't die here: -6 modifier on any outcome that has a character death").  This makes more sense, and yet is more flexible, than the old likelihood rules.


But my main question for now is having to do with GM and player relationships.  A certain amount of antagonism is built into the system because the player and GM (usually) each define a competing and mutually-exclusive ending to each crisis.  However, my goal with symmoira is a more cooperative experience, where both players realize that the opposing system of outcomes is just a tool for suspense.  The rule that I'm considering with regard to this is who should define the likelihood of the GM's outcome?

If it's left up to the GM, he'll have been given most of the power over the rules.  The problems with this are that (1) it may tempt GM fiat and (2) the GM must try to straddle two roles: fair arbiter of likelihoods, and narrator of the "negative outcome" that is by nature opposed to the characters' aims.  The alternative is to have the GM define likelihood for the players' outcome, and the players define it for his.  This is more equitable in a literal sense but it may promote a strong GM vs. player mentality.  

So the question, in parts, is:

1. can I reasonably try to control the "cooperative" nature of the game in this way, or will different groups always play it differently (either more cooperative or more adversarial) regardless of which way I go?

2. If I can control it, which of the two options would best achieve what I want?

I'd really like comments from anyone who's played/designed/knows of a game where someone other than the GM is given a strong hand in evaluating some aspect of the world, in terms of modifiers or whatnot, the way GMs usually are.


An further alternative that occurred to me was a reformulation of the GM's narrated outcome, making it not necessarily "negative" but merely different...but it seems to me that to maintain tension between the outcomes, and a sense of suspense/drama, at least one of the two outcomes need to more overtly negative.  

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated.

[PlotDevice]

OK, I am getting page cannot be displayed on your latest rules link, so haven't read them but here is my 2c:

This concept for a game is uncomfortable to me, because I am thinking about how  would GM it, and it does seem confrontation inducing.

The essence of plausibility should be accessible to all participants, and this requires a great deal of groundwork to establish what is plausible, likely or unlikely for each game world. This is largely why games move toward symbolic simulation (dice, stats etc) over remaining nebulous stories. You are getting close to the universalis concept of paying for plot points or descriptors with this methodology, except that instead of paying for it with coins, you are paying for it with probabilities of success.

So in answer to (1) you can try, the more clear your definition of what is allowed the better off you will be, and (2) Don't try to tell the GM their job. Just give a structure for how to resolve probability of actions as un-arbitrarily as possible.

Rather than positing a negative and a positive result, have you considered that the GM and players should both be positing their own plausibilities, without actually defining them as intrinsically antagonistic? And they might be ably to come to an agreement without probability... which you could encourage by rewarding situations where no dice are needed to be rolled?

Just an idea.

Evan

PS Moira is closer to fate than luck... in a modern Greek's reading, anyhoo.

[Ben O'Neal]

I, too, am unable to reach your link.

But going by what you've presented here, I think that having a GM might be holding you back, and causing more trouble than it's worth. If it's not absolutely essential to how your game plays, I say drop having a GM. You may very well find that all your old problems dissapear.

As far as your core mechanic goes, it's not really blowing my mind, but that doesn't really matter at all, so long as you are happy with it. In my opinion, the whole "plausibility" thing probably shouldn't be there. I mean, if the player narrates something that isn't plausible within the setting, then they probably aren't taking the game seriously. More importantly, however, is that you may inadvertantly be discouraging creativity. Sometimes the most fun outcomes are those that come out of nowhere and seem "just crazy enough to work". I dunno though, it might actually work out exactly as you want it, in which case there's nothing wrong with it at all.

Also, why do you have attributes, abilities, and flaws? Can't you just have abilities? Or abilities and flaws? Why do you need attributes?

But yeah, my main point is about discarding the GM role, because it just doesn't seem to fit with what you are describing as your goals.

-Ben

[timfire]

I found your game, but I had to follow the link in your sig> go to the new web address> check out "games"> link on Symmoria> "Rules" section. That was 5 clicks of the mouse's buttons.

I just skimmed through it, however, I found the general outline to be bit confusing. For example, you discuss modifiers to 'crises' (conflicts) long before you ever get to how you roll the dice. A bit confusing. I would encourage you to re-write the text in strict outline form. Doing that it's easier to see if there's a logical progression of ideas.

Also, here a small quibble: You say that the GM approves EVERYTHING in the game (the GM approve all player statements). That's not neccessary. While that's a common attitude, very few people actually play that way.

[Jasper]

Ack, sorry about the bad link.  Try this instead: //www.primevalpress.com/games/symmoira

Plausibility is not discussed very much in the main rules, except in outline, and instead comes from the individual setting, plus common ideas about physics and so forth.  Most of the rules in a setting are really just modifiers to plausibility ("precepts" I call 'em).  In theory these will cover everything that could modify the odds.

Evan, if you look at the last little paragraph in my last post, I'd actually asked whether eliminating "positive/negative" for outcomes was a good idea.  My concern would be that doing so would remove impetus from the story somehow. I think a certain amount of...not actual confronatation but opposition, between player and GM narration, may be necessary for tension / drama.  But perhaps the pull between two different--though not necessarily opposed--outcomes would be enough.


Ben,

I have indeed considered geting rid of the GM entirely, which especially works if I also remove the positive/negative outcomes.  I guess my main reason for having one was to stop every little event in the game from being a crisis: with tacit GM approval a player can freely describe something relatively minor.  I suppose the players could just allow most narrations to go ahead freely, unless another player had an alternate outcome, or perhaps if that narration crossed a certain "advantage" threshold...but that again seems to call for a somewhat negative outcome to counter it.

Regarding plausibility, perhaps the term is a bad one and is throwing you off.  It's not actually intended to be invoked in a general "Oh, well that seems kind of implausible... -3 penalty" way, but rather with appeals to specific setting precepts, like "airships exist in this world, so that's not impossible" or "gods only talk to mortals very rarely on tuesday, so since it's tuesday, -2."  Plauibility is just a catch-all for all the myriad modifiers besides advantage/disadvantage that go into a crisis roll.

You're completely right about attributes, flaws, abilities: they're gone now, except attributes which are just important traits that every character should consider.  Some settings won't even use them.


Timfire,

Point taken on organization.  It actually was a lot worse, and has been rearranged repeatedly, so some references may indeed be out of place.  I'll do as you suggest and write a clean outline.

[PlotDevice]

Ack, sorry about the bad link.  Try this instead: //www.primevalpress.com/games/symmoira

Evan, if you look at the last little paragraph in my last post, I'd actually asked whether eliminating "positive/negative" for outcomes was a good idea.  My concern would be that doing so would remove impetus from the story somehow. I think a certain amount of...not actual confronatation but opposition, between player and GM narration, may be necessary for tension / drama.  But perhaps the pull between two different--though not necessarily opposed--outcomes would be enough.

Yah, I hear that. I am encouraging you to avoid opposition as a concept because in my mind it leads to confrontation. You want to be encouraging collabouration even in the most basic language you use IMHO. Different ideas for the story are sufficient.

And with regards eliminating the GM: One of the problems I have with universalis is the amount of input that is needed by the less creative people in a group. My roleplaying groups scrounge hard to find other people than myself willing to GM, and I am not able to convince them to take on a concept like Universalis. I think the value that a GM brings to this kind of game idea is in the creative energy and ideas, and framework within which everyone can operate. Riding a bike without the kiddie wheels is not for everyone.

My 2c again.

Evan

[Jasper]

I've done a near-complete rewrite of the rules.  I expected it to be smaller, though it's not, so perhaps the original was tighter than I thought.  Regardless, the organization is better I think, and many rules should be clearer.  Images aren't in yet, but I'll get around to it.

More substantively:

I've eliminated the GM as a default player role.  There is however, a section for optionally including one.  As per what Evan said, I think this will work well for groups that need more guidance or don't quite have the creative energies as some others.  But the standard way to play is GMless (yeah yeah, or GMful.)

I've broken down how crises come up and are resolved much more.  Everything centers around narrations which may then be challenged ("opposed"): narrations where a character accomplishes something get opposed automatically; other narrations are left to stand unless someone wants to challenge it.  The challenge then takes the form of an alternative outcome.  For the automatically opposed narrations, which by nature are to the advantage of the character, a more harmful alternative outcome is required, but otherwise it can be either positive or negative.

Although some of the new rules for when positiv/negative outcomes are used are a little hairy, I think this basically maintains the level of competition that I'm looking for.  On the most basic level players narrate things and they happen.  But sometimes there's disagreement over what should happen, in which case a crisis is called to resolve the dispute.  But narrations that involve action and accomplishment are always up for grabs, and another player is called in to narrate something opposing it.

[GregS]

Let me begin by saying I really like the MO you are going for, here.  I think the idea of a situation resovling mechanic, rather than a move/incident resolving mechanic, is awesome.  It will certainly help those of us who put a lot of Story in our RPing and don't care how much damage we do each strike.

That said, I think it's dangerous, even conceptually, for this concept to exist long in a vaccum.  The reality is it will only appeal to a very specific player base and if the rest of the game doesn't appeal to the same players you'll be dead in the water.  Thus, I can't personally see this as any kind of universal system, but rather as a system that plays to one or two very specific audiences.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  My own AOR system, which is what Valherjar is using, will probably not be used again after this IP is done.  It's too mood specific to Val to be universal, and so unless I do another noirish game with a high body count it just couldn't happen.

That said...

1. can I reasonably try to control the "cooperative" nature of the game in this way, or will different groups always play it differently (either more cooperative or more adversarial) regardless of which way I go?

The reality, as I've experienced it, is that most gaming groups tend to be somewhat adversarial.  If you take a look at a lot of the player forums, watch games at cons or your local game shops, or read gamer media you'll see that "rules lawyering" groups still seem mostly prevelant--and they, by definition, tend to be adversarial gamers.  That said, I think you can assume at least a healthy portion of the people who'll pick up your game will play it that way.

2. If I can control it, which of the two options would best achieve what I want?

If it were me, to preserve what I believe is the concept of your system (note that caveat), I would make it as non-adversarial as possible.  The easiest way to do that?  Don't make it player vs. GM, but instead try for player vs. formula.

Now, the question becomes, how do you do that?  My solution might be for adapting the law of averages to the character's statistics, and then factoring in any irregular/special effects.  This would tell you how hard a roll is needed based on how unlikely the outcome is.  

For example, let's take two characters, A and B.  They are going to brawl, so their brawling skill (sic) comes into play.  Now, they have, for the sake of easy numbers, a Skill rating from 0 to 4.  In this case, A has a skill of 4 and B a skill of 2.  So, law of averages, A has a great chance to win a brawl (since his skill is twice that of B's).  When they brawl, if A says, "I step toe to toe with him and trade blows, parrying his shots when I can, and landing vicious punches at every opening.  Eventually, though I've taken a few lucky shots, I beat him into submission." this would count as very likely, if not near automatic, and would have a roll to make as such.

If, on the other hand, A said, "I school him like Jackie Chan taking away some 4th grader's lunch money...pummeling him without ever mussing my hair" that could be somewhat likely, or even money, since there is a huge discrepancy in skill.

But if B, on the other hand, tried to declare those same actions, they would be from "unlikely but possible" for scenario 1 to "basically impossible" for scenario 2.

The dice rolls, then, would be scaled to reflect the range of liklihood, obviously being more difficult the less likely the outcome would be.  And, with that, though there would always be descrepancy with how likely or unlikely it was, it would give you a bit of a backbone to base it all on.

Okay, that was long, and probably not as specific as I meant for it to be, but hopefully it gives you some kind of idea what I'm suggestion.

And this line is just to make the whole post that much longer.

And now I'm signing off.  ;)

[PlotDevice]

Heya Jasper:

from your rules:
"A crisis defines two alternative paths which the story could go down. These alternatives are called outcomes. The initial outcome is the narration that precipitated the crisis. The alternative outcome is called the opposing outcome. The two are always described by different people: if opposition was called for (rather than being automatic), whoever called it defines the opposing outcome, it can be done by any other player. Lacking a volunteer, the player sitting to the right of the original narrator should describe it. If more than one volunteers, whoever is sitting closest to the narrator's right gets the privilege. "

The method of determining the alternate path of the action seems arbitrary, for situations where you have a creative group. What happens if you have 2 separate people that both have ideas for the alternate event that they particularly like and want implemented? Seems that the one on that is closest always gets the option. And I would try to sit in the middle of the group, to be closest to everyone... as an example...

Evan

[Jasper]

Howdy,

Thus, I can't personally see this as any kind of universal system, but rather as a system that plays to one or two very specific audiences.

Well take "universal" with a grain of salt: I wasn't intending to use it in the way that it's often understood here at The Forge.  AFAIK, most people in the online RPG community seem to use "universal" synonymously with "settingless."  I completely agree that Symmoira couldn't be picked up by just anyone and used to any old end: it definitely has specific functions, but I don't think they depends overmuch on setting per se.  

My solution might be for adapting the law of averages to the character's statistics, and then factoring in any irregular/special effects. This would tell you how hard a roll is needed based on how unlikely the outcome is.

Hmm...I guess I'm not really seeing the difference between your suggestion and how I'm doing it currently.  Is the difference that we're now focusing on relative skill levels first and foremost?  Skill is currently factored in, and so relative skills levels do matter...I don't think I want them to be the focus of the resolution system though, with advantage/disadvantage instead being paramount.  I don't see quite what you mean by "law of averages" (a fallicious law, no? or am I thinknig of something else?), nor how the suggestion will specifically reduce competetiveness.  Don't get me wrong, it may be a great idea, but I don't get it yet.

What happens if you have 2 separate people that both have ideas for the alternate event that they particularly like and want implemented? Seems that the one on that is closest always gets the option.

That's true, the closest person will always get it if there are lots of creative people, and yes that's totally arbitrary.  The basis for the mechanic is a gamble between two options.  Including more than two options in the mechanic (e.g. 1-4 goes to Jim, 5-6 to Barry and 7-10 to Will) seems far to cumbersmoe to me, without completely changing it (perhaps to a bidding system ala Universalis).

It was my thought that the two alternate outcomes wouldn't be generated in simultaneous response to something in the story.  Rather, although multiple responses may exist, only one is dealt with -- and indeed it's arbitrary.  The alternative outcome is then based on that initial response, and plays off it; it isn't a direct response to the story itself.  Here's an example:

It doesn't go like this (in theory):

The Evil Villain (tm) has just pointed a gun at the major of the city.

Bob is thinking that he should narrate the gun going of and killing the mayor.

Barry is going to describe a sniper knocking the gun away from the villain.

Violet is planning to have an explosion go off nearby.

They all start to speak at once...

It should go like this:

Same scenario.  Regardless of what any of them are thinking or had planned to narrate, Barry is chosen to narrate.  He describes the sniper firing, etc.  

Violet is asked to come up with an alternative.  She doesn't rattle off her own idea that was floating about her own head (if she had one).  Instead she riffs off Barry's outcome as much as possible, saying something like:

"The sniper fires, but the bullet misses.  The madman jumps and pulls the mayor to the ground, and then intentionally shoots him in the leg saying, 'that was a warning shot!'"

Does that make any sense?

Simply cycling the top-priority of narration around the table seemed the best way to make sure everyone got a chance while very simply resolving the conflict of more than one simultaneous narration.  If anyone has a good idea for a less arbitrary method, I'd be highly open to it.

(And as for sitting in the middle of the group: I was assuming some kind of circle, or at least a regular pattern of rotation.  I wasn't going to be quite that arbitrary ;)  For real arbitrariness, see the board game Dwarven Dig which allows the player with the longest beard to go first.  Good thing for me that all my friends are clean shaven!)

[Ben O'Neal]

Simply cycling the top-priority of narration around the table seemed the best way to make sure everyone got a chance while very simply resolving the conflict of more than one simultaneous narration. If anyone has a good idea for a less arbitrary method, I'd be highly open to it.

Well, I'm assuming that every narration must come after another person's narration, so using your example, Billy narrates how the madman is holding a gun at the mayor. Instead of the person to the right deciding who gets to narrate an outcome, perhaps allow anyone to give a brief description of where they want the narration to go, and allow Billy to decide who gets it. So Barry says "I want a sniper to try to shoot the madman", and Violet says "I want an explosion to happen", and Billy might decide he likes Barry's idea more, so Billy and Barry make their rolls and if Barry's outome wins, then Barry get's to narrate it all, and things continue from there with Barry now deciding who's outcomes he wants.

Make sense? I hope so, it sorta seems a little incoherent to me, but I'm tired as hell.

The advantage I see this having over an arbitrary method, is that it encourages creativity, options, and empowers the person who is currently narrating to "choose their own adventure", whilst also delivering a method for "passing the ball". The only problem I see with it is for players who consistently come up with unpopular ideas or who are lazy with their narrations, in that they will be left out. Of course, the flipside to this is that the quality of the story would increase. However, I think that such a problem would/should seldom, if ever, arise.

What do you think? Workable in your game?


Also, you needn't worry about competitiveness versus cooperation until you see the issue crop up in play-testing. It's my (admittedly limited) experience that these things can be both present and very high simultaneously with no negative side effects. Right now, just design the rules to achieve what you want them to achieve.

For real arbitrariness, see the board game Dwarven Dig which allows the player with the longest beard to go first.

That's, just....just... so damn COOL!!!

Beards are awesome. I wish I had one.

-Ben

[Jasper]

Ben,

That's not a bad idea you have there -- in fact I quite like it.  Definitely less arbitrary.  My only concern is the extra time it takes for everyone to go through their outcome ideas.  If you have a lot of players, and they're all creative, this could take a while. I think I'd at least excluse the player who last narrated to prevent a two-way ping-pong match of narration, and get more players involved (unless of course there only are two players).  Thanks.  Pending any serious problems that arise, I think I'll go with it.