[Power/Evil] Strategy-Gamist No-GM RPG

[xenopulse]

Alright. So I've finally sat down and written up my Power/Evil rules. What is P/E? It's a pure Gamist game. It's all about the challenge. It has no GM. It has no IIEE issues. Actually, I am wondering if it really still is an RPG, or more a return to wargaming roots without a board and miniatures. If you have an opinion on that, I'm dying to hear it.

Anyway. Click on the following to read the draft rules:
http://www.geocities.com/xenopulse/PowerEvil-RPG-01.pdf

In short, P/E is a GM-less game. Players take turns creating and upgrading characters, lands and items. They can create Scenes, which are basically battles among characters for rewards (e.g., more slots for characters, lands and items, in good old Gamist full-cycle tradition). Eventually they set Scenes for victory points, and the game ends when one player has gathered 5 of those points. There's a good bit of crunchiness in the characters and items at this point, along with some stepping-on-up highlights such as Staking a Character's Life. Overall, it has resource management, strategy, and risk elements. The scenes are roleplayed, but mainly regarding Color--all of the important parts are handled by the mechanics.

The pdf includes introduction, details, play example, summary sheets and play sheets.

Here are my questions:

1) To those of you with Gamist tendencies, can you see yourself playing this with enjoyment? Or is it TOO detached from traditional RPGs and more like a boardgame w/o the board?

2) Does the system overall make sense? Is there a glaring hole I don't see?

3) Of course there needs to be balancing in earnings/costs, but that's probably for playtesting. Speaking of which, anybody wanna?

I am planning, at this point, to give this basic version away for free and, if enough interest exists, build a much more complex, crunchier version that elaborates the roles of characters and lands, which I might then sell for a couple of bucks as a PDF. I am somewhat on a quest to make a good Gamist game that one can just enjoy, which combines the challenge and fun os trategizing with the neatness of actually having characters and Color.

Hmm. I realize my questions aren't too specific, and I probably won't get too many responses. But I appreciate anyone taking their time to look at it.

[Jack Aidley]

I'm afraid I haven't time to read through it thoroughly at the moment, but from the quick skim over I've done so far I like the look of it. The only thing that strikes me is the periferal role of the narrative. I do wonder whether this could (without altering the clear cut nature of the game) be bought into a more central role. As it is, it seems like you've got a board game with a tacked on narrative role; I'd suggest you decide either to make it more central or drop it altogether - I think the game would benefit from both approaches.

Have you looked at Capes? It has a very clear cut and gamey resolution system underneath it's narrative structure. I suspect you could take something from it's design to apply to your own game.

[xenopulse]

Jack,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you liked the basic look.

I know what you mean about the narrative--that's my point with moving it away from what most people consider an RPG to be.*

I wanted to make sure that it's really objectively Gamist, i.e., there is no decision that players can make that is in any way arbitrary. In Capes, from what I've read, people vote on coolness and the likes. That's great for that game, but for my game, it wouldn't work, because that's arbitrary. Your success, then, depends on the mood of your group and potentially whether they like you or whatnot. Instead, in P/E, it's all objective mechanics.

Maybe, however, I am realizing that the area of fuzziness is really what makes an RPG an RPG. I mean, when I praise RPGs to my friends, I usually emphasize the unlimited amount of possible actions. Anything can be done, as long as you can imagine it. That part, now, I've eliminated from the system in P/E, with the exception of the Color. I guess I've created a strategy game that allows and facilitates creative Coloring. I can live with that. :)


* I do have, however, Wolfe's Stamp of RPG-Ness Approval

[contracycle]

I love it, I think this is absolutely fantastic, its pushed a whole lot of my buttons.  Unfortunately its late so I shall have more to say later but at the moment I like pretty much everything about it.

[komradebob]

Xenopulse( Christian):

First off, I really, like this game! I spent most of the afternoon hidden in my cubicle going over the printout marking up my copy! Great stuff!

A couple quick thoughts:

1) Is it an rpg?
I'm not sure this matters. it certainly has a ton of elements that are found in rpgs, and should have appeal to many folks that like rpgs. Given that, I'm not sure that its exact definition matters. For sure, it is an intriguing game, regardless of what broad category it falls in to.

2) A crunchier version?
Do you want crunchier or fleshier? What I mean is, do you want to take this in a direction with, say, more modifiers, or do you want to spend some time maybe coming up with some premade factions, characters, lands, etc, for players to just pop in? Do you want to think about artwork that evokes the setting, or fiction? I get the impression that you'd like players that encounter P/E to be able to really add a lot of their own ideas. I'd like to point out that you providing some initial ideas doesn't actually preclude anyone from doing that. Rather, it acts as a jumpstart, similar to having an introductory adventure with pregen characters in a game.

3) What part does narration play?
Right now it looks like you'd lke players to pretty much provide narration without any sort of mechanical reward. At some level, that's okay-people tend to use silly accents in Axis and Allies, and I can recall many sessions of Monopoly that involved some sort of proto-roleplaying by non-rpg-gamers. OTOH, you seem to really want to encourage it. I just started looking over Ron's Apprentice version of Sorcerer, and noticed some ideas that might be worth blatantly stealing for your game in regard to bringing in colorful narration.

4) Color, color, color
It seems like this is a really core part of P/E. As a suggestion, I would play up that aspect even further in later versions of your game. I think color is very important to the appeal of this game. Having said that, your core system looks like it could be readily translated to any number of other settings that involve factions vying with one another. You've chosen a fantasy setting where evil, supernatural factions are vying with one another. I could see it working equally well for Cold War proxy wars, Organized Crime feuds, Espionage networks, Court Intrigue, and even a few less bloodthirsty situations ( not to reveal too much about my personal proclivities...).

Actually, I am wondering if it really still is an RPG, or more a return to wargaming roots without a board and miniatures

Strangely, I'm thinking of stealing this exactly for use with miniatures. I started a thread a while ago in theory asking for new approaches to using miniatures in gaming, and your core system seems like it would work quite nicely for that. Terribly nice of you to have done all the really hard work...  ;)

Out of curiosity, have you done some initial testing of speed of play without worrying about narration? Some of those dice pools look like they could get large quickly, and only losing one point of vitality per lost conflict seems like it could mean some lengthy slugfests between bulked up characters.

On Victory Points:
I noticed that the rules said that when certain cards were drawn, the active player could declare that the prize was a victory point. Unless the deck automatically gets reshuffled if it reaches the end, this might create problems if noone chooses to declare a victory point goal, or not enough of them as cards are turned.

I did have yet more comments, but the bulk of them are regarding strictly stylistic issues in terms of the order rules are presented in, layout, and so forth. You know, strictly opinion stuff that doesn't have to do with your core ideas. I'll try to put together a pm of them to fire off.

Really good stuff Christian! I look forward to see where this goes,

Robert

[xenopulse]

contracycle,

Thanks. You made my day. :) I look forward to reading your thoughts in a little bit.

Robert,

Thanks! For taking the time to read it, for providing the comments, and for the positive encouragement. I am glad you find things to enjoy about it. Your points are all very valid, of course. Here are my answers, for now, though I'm also still stewing over the whole thing:

1) Yeah, I guess the category doesn't matter so much.

2) Fleshier is mainly what I want, but also potentially with more options, i.e., more land statuses, maybe even ways to conquer other people's lands, maybe rewards that are unique. Stuff like that. I do want players to take it and make it their own, in terms of atmosphere and feel. Maybe if I provide more examples, that will "jumpstart" their imagination, as you say.

3) Hmm. I've got Sorcerer, but never looked at the Apprentice version. The problem with mechanically rewarding Color, as I said above, is that it gets me into arbitrary territory (i.e., the other players need to be the judges of that, and then it gets in the way of playing fairly).

In my other current project, torn (the draft of which is not quite done, but close), players are required to provide more background and description of characters the more mechanically important they become. I could do something similar here. Or, I could give them pre-challenge rolls for roleplaying either with each other or just narrating, and then award bonus dice for that.

4) I guess I could pound on the Color that I like, and then insert a section on alternate versions where I encourage players to make up their own background. In fact, I think your idea of providing pre-made factions and the likes is spot on. Thanks :)

On Minis: Feel free to use whatever you want. The basic game will definitely be a creative commons license product.

On victory points: I didn't mention it, but yeah, once the cards run out, just shuffle and repeat. I was also thinking about letting players reshuffle if all of them agree to do that. Or else, I could declare the end of cards as endgame, where all scenes favor all skills and are always about victory points. I guess there could be variants.

The layout is definitely not final--just a way for me to write it out and keep it manageable.

Again, thanks a lot for taking the time and effort of reading and commenting!

[GaryTP]

Seems like a narrative boardgame...


...that I want to play.

I could see this as a game where players were the Great Old Ones of HPL fame. Screwing around with the primitives. Very neat.

[xenopulse]

Cool. Maybe we should arrange a playtest via IRC sometime.

Apropos, I've actually been wanting to look into Unaris for a while, as I've mostly roleplayed via chat programs over the past 9 years. It looks intriguing form the outside.

[komradebob]

On victory points: I didn't mention it, but yeah, once the cards run out, just shuffle and repeat. I was also thinking about letting players reshuffle if all of them agree to do that. Or else, I could declare the end of cards as endgame, where all scenes favor all skills and are always about victory points. I guess there could be variants.

A really mean variant could be The Smeagol Option: If noone has scored enough victory points by the time that the last possible Victory Point Reward card scene has been turned and played, some leftover, unnoticed agent of Good manages to completely destroy the basis of power for all the Evil players and everyone loses. That should encourage some Step-on-Uppiness!

I could see this as a game where players were the Great Old Ones of HPL fame. Screwing around with the primitives. Very neat.

Is it At the Mountains of Madness that goes into some detail about the wars fought in primordial times beteween the various Mythos races? I've got an old  Great Race mini sitting on my desk, just begging for a use, hehehe.

The layout is definitely not final--just a way for me to write it out and keep it manageable.

I understand. Most of my thoughts had to do with stripping out the game design commentary from the main body of the rules and putting it in designer notes at the end. Other than that, layout thoughts mostly had to do with placement of examples and the use of bullets-like I said, issues of preference/opinion, not actually anything to do with your core ideas.

Although, I do think that they should be called Eeeeevil Minions, rather than characters...  ;)

The problem with mechanically rewarding Color, as I said above, is that it gets me into arbitrary territory (i.e., the other players need to be the judges of that, and then it gets in the way of playing fairly).

I guess you're right about this one. Still, it could be the basis for interesting variant rules-perhaps players that do not have Eeeevil Minions in a scene could spend PPs to give dice for a scene if they liked the color? Well, okay they'd probably do it for personal gain, but, well, they are Evil.

Thought: Ties should cause both Eeevil Minions to lose a point of vitality, rather than neither losing a point. This should speed things up a bit, and isn't too threatening unless one has Staked their Life.

Great stuff,
Robert

[xenopulse]

Robert,

Thanks again for the comments. I like the Smeagol option, though with only 10 cards that can give victory points (4 kings, 4 aces, 2 jokers) I might have to make some changes.

I am also considering turning victory points actually into lands that are conquered (so you need to win the majority of the lands), and rename what's now lands into nodes or power structures or some such to keep that earning effect in place. Then, in the fleshing out phase, I can give the lands different names and effects. And since there'll be a limited number, that'll make the battles about them more intense.

Actually, your Smeagol suggestion brought something up that I suggested in a recent degisn thread where someone was designing a horror/survival game--a mechanic where you can invest resources either in fighting a common enemy, or being the one to survive. So if the "Good Faction" was an independent mechanism that all of the Evil factions had to fight, but they can each dercide how much power to put into that, that'd make for another interesting variant.

I guess you're right about this one. Still, it could be the basis for interesting variant rules-perhaps players that do not have Eeeevil Minions in a scene could spend PPs to give dice for a scene if they liked the color? Well, okay they'd probably do it for personal gain, but, well, they are Evil.

You make a good point--there should be a way that non-participating players can still have some stake in a Scene and have a little bit of influence. Maybe I'll just allow anyone to use Divine Intervention for any character.

And you're right, ties should lead to both losing vitality, otherwise the exchange was wasted. This way, it'll be tense when the last challenge between two characters with vitality 1 comes up a tie. That's the point when Divine Intervention becomes important.

[komradebob]

Land Conquest Rules Variant:
When a card comes up indicating that a land slot is the scene reward, the active player may either play for a generic land slot as per the normal rules or may declare that the fight is over one of the other players' already existing lands. If the fight is over an existing land, the owner may bring in their lowest value character for free. ( The weedy little devil has been left behind as a caretaker while the Tougher characters are out conquering for their evil overlord...).

Alternately alternate, the attacked player may bring in any character for free.

Victory Point variant #1:
Jokers are worth two VP.

Victory Point Variant #2:
As, Ks, and Jokers are always Victory Point reward scenes and the Active Player may choose a second reward as well. Jokers additionally have the Betrayal/Possession effect as in the main rules.