Group-centric Fantasy

[Jasper]

So I'm finally getting 'round to the "make your own fantasy heart-breaker" project (though I don't think the results of such projects can really be heart-breakers per se) and I'd really appreciate some feedback on what I've got so far.

I have some basic ideas about how I want play to go, and some key twists on the stock-standard fantasy genre's rules. As my subject suggests, the rules will be centered on group activities.  Most games throw in some rules, last minute, to handle conflicts where multiple characters are working together in a highly interdepedent way.  That kind of thing is to be the very core of this game (which I'm calling Coterie right now, for lack of anything else.)

So instead of a standard fantasy fight, where each player character squares off against some baddies and rolls to do 'em in, we have the whole group fighting together as a real unit, against all of its enemies.  Each opposing side adds up some modifiers and rolls to determine which way the next phase of th fight will swing.  Then, we add on extra layers of detail: each character makes an individual roll to see how much he contributed to the group's whole effort.  If he did really well, he gets to do some super-cool special moves, which his player makes up. If he does really badly, he may find himself cut off from his friends or taking some extra wounds, above and beyond what everyone on his side takes.

There are two other things I'm trying to achieve. (1) Reduce a lot of modifiers to a few distinct levels instead of widely-ranging numerical scores.  So victories are marginal, major, or decisive -- not a number between 1 and 10.   (2) Apply some of the focus I've taken away from individual actions to subtleties of combat, like footing, cover, weapons (maybe) and so on. Also (3 I guess), make the rules for handling enemies quicker than those for PCs.  There's no reason for them to be the same, and using equally detailed rules would just bog things down.

That's enough of an introduction.  You can read the rules as they stand here: http://www.primevalpress.com/games/coterie.html

Let me know what you think in general and what I can do to make it better reach the goals I stated above.  A lot of it is pretty sketchy, I realize, especially characters.  There's not much, if anything, that I'm wed to.  Also be aware that I intend the resolution system to apply equally well to non-violent conflicts, even though emphasis is on physical combat.

Thanks in advance.

[Jasper]

Forgot two things.

Anther goal was to constantly be giving the players options for how things will go.  Not free and open narrative control necessarily, but alternatives.  For instance, if they lose a fight, it's important that they get to choose either (a) to take some injuries or (b) fall back.  It should be up to them, not the GM -- though he may craft the options they choose between.

Also, the rules are confusing on (at least) one point.  The table that describes conflict results indicates that a "decisive" win or loss leads to the immediate conclusion of the conflict.  Later on, the I provide regular sorts of consequences for the decisive outcomes.  This is because I wasn't sure which way to go -- should any conflict be potentially resolved in the first phase? Opinions on why that might be good or bad would be welcome.

[jerry]

Tunnels and Trolls did this, although for combat only. I thought it was the most fascinating parts of the game, and should have been developed more fully.

Jerry

[Jasper]

Jerry,

Which part?  Where the whole group conducts combat together?

[jerry]

Which part?  Where the whole group conducts combat together?

In Tunnels & Trolls, at least in the version I have dated from 1979, there is no roll to successfully hit opponents. There is only what I would call a damage roll.

Weapons have ratings that are a number of dice plus a static number. For example, a sabre is rated 3 + 4. This means that anyone using it rolls 3d6 and adds four points.

Individuals will also often have "personal adds" that increase their weapons' static number.

In combat, everyone rolls their weapon dice and modifies by their weapon and personal adds.

Each of the weapon rolls are added together into a group total. The total is then compared to the similar total of the "monster" side. Whichever side has the highest total is the side that does damage. The difference in the totals is divided evenly among the losing side's members and subtracted from their constitutions.

So if one side rolls a total of 55 and the other side rolls a total of 43, the side that rolled 43 takes 12 points of damage. If there are three members in the losing side, they would each lose 4 points of constitution. The winning side does not lose any constitution.

That's pretty much it. It made it very difficult for an individual to take on a group; there's pretty much no chance of a lucky high roll taking out one opponent from a group of opponents because even if the individual manages to get a higher total than the group of opponents, the damage will be divided up among them. A melee will result in the entire losing side laid low.

(Note, though, that other rules, such as magic and ranged weapons, do allow for targeting individual opponents.)

It was an interestingly different idea.

Jerry

[John Burdick]

Some of what you are doing reminds me of how some wargames have implemented combat. Since comparing rpgs and wargames is controversial, I want to be clear that I think this is interesting as an rpg. I like playing support roles. Bards in current D&D, for example, have a reputation of helping the team win, but not doing enough on their own. Team centered play could increase the accomplishment value.

John

[Jasper]

Thanks, Jerry, for that description. T&T is before my time.  The major difference is probably that I'm adding another layer of individual performance that rides alongside, rather than just being incorporated into the group's performance.  I'd actually thought of doing it more like T&T, mechanically, with each individual character rolling up how much he contributes to the team's side, and then combining them some way.  But a more abstract system for varying personal performance seemed much simpler, with less on-the-fly math.

John,

Is comparing RPGs to wargames really controversial?  If so, I've never noticed. Anyway, you make a good point and one which I hadn't really been thinking of.  Mostly I chose a more group-centric approach in order to (a) make combat (and other conflict) go faster -- instead of many separate resolutions for each character you get one big one -- and (b) to just make play less about your own extra-special-personal character in general.  And maybe (b) will also focus the players more on each other, within the game context, than is some times the case. Though maybe you were also getting at that.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jasper,

I think that the game which came closest to what you're talking about is Story Engine, especially the group-resolution mechanic which was presented as primary in the original version of the game, Maelstrom (and was absent from the pallid on-line version, Story Bones).

Story Engine had a very, very good mechanism for getting everyone all wrapped up in a complex conflict, then permitting individuals to do "me-bits" within it to enhance the overall chances - or on occasion, a "me-bit" might divorce the individual character from the group conflict for an isolated action or goal.

I have some criticisms of the overall currency of the game, which needed to be a lot more sensible before conflict/scene manipulations can work, but Story Engine really offered some tremendous insights about how to do this stuff. Not only mechanically, but also socially (I'm thinking mainly of the Maelstrom text, now).

Also check out the Extended Contest mechanics in HeroQuest. I'm surprised that we don't see more actual play accounts about how individual actions can go all strange during a group Extended Contest, and how that relates to the point-spending mechanic. Now that's a game in which the Currency makes a lot more sense, and much of the potential represented in Story Engine is realized in HeroQuest.

I strongly recommend reading, playing, and understanding Tunnels & Trolls as well. It's clearly the historical parent of this entire concept.

Best,
Ron