Something of Interest...

[Da' Vane]

I was directed to this forum by a friend, and I thought that somebody might be interested in something I worked on a while back.

PCSIK

Few people have seen this, and I kind of lost interest after it's release. However, of the little feedback I have had on it, the general concensus is that while the system is as clunky as hell, PCSIK actually works well as a piece on designing and maintaining a story and campaign for a loose story driven game.

I'm not expecting accolades here - but I thought somebody may want to use the ideas in here for something.

(I'm not much of a writer, and my critical failing is that I hardly ever keep notes of anything, let alone write for the sake of writing. hence there is little or no support here to show this in action. However, I have played it a few times, and it works on a fundamental level.)

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to the Forge.

Reminds me a lot of the Action! system. http://www.action-system.com/

I note that you mention here, and in the text that the system is supposed to be such that you can use it to tailor your game. Can you expand on that? Is it just the ability design rules that do this? Does it have advantages over Action!? Fuzion? FUDGE?

What does PCSIK stand for? Could not find it.

Also, when you say "story driven" what do you mean by that?

Mike

[Da' Vane]

PCSIK was in my head for about 6 years, and i finally got around to putting it on paper last year. As such, I think you'll find that it actually started before Action!, FUDGE, and Fuzion even hit the development bench, let alone the store shelves. Even now I give myself a quite chuckle when I find mechanics to which I can say "Yeah, I did that with PCSIK..."

In fact, I  was actually talking about this with a friend several years ago when I first considered writing it down, and he suggested the name "Action!" because of the cinematic nature, and I was like "Can't do that - the name is already been used..."

To be honest, I don't know what the advantages are, other than there are no real defined mechanic to tie you down. PCSIK ended up being more like a DIY game system toolkit than anything else, dealing more with game design philosophy than actual rules.

PCSIK doesn't mean anything - it's just the abbreviation of the 5 main characteristics of characters. I'm not very good with names, so I often use this as short hand, and it just sort of stuck.

When I say "story driven", I mean driven by stories!

I've always been interested in human intelligence and development, and one of the main features that have brought this about is through the ability to teach and learn from each other using different methods. The two most common methods are stories and games.

Stories feed off our bery unique capacity for pattern recognition, and our seemingly inate ability to predict the future from them. When you tell a story, be it an anecdote, piece of fiction, news, or fable you are describing a set of conditions and the outcome of those conditions. Everybody who you tell that story is able to remember what happened in those sets of conditions, and be able to guess what will happen next when those conditions apply to them.

Games, on the other hand allow us to experience things in a relatively safe environment. They allow us to use our innate abilties of pattern recognition and hone them, as well as feeding our experiences. Many are quite fun as well!

Roleplaying Games are the very pinnacle of this process, combining these two main tools for developing human intelligence into a single medium. RPGs are essentially games about stories. Except, rather than just telling them, the players are actually creating them, brining in their own experiences to the group.

Because I consider RPGs to be games about stories, PCSIK was developed around quite a few story-based ideas, quite a few of which were imported from the play/movie medium. Also, I've had significant experience with different styles od games, so I've tried to keep it open to different types of game play.

Adventure pacing is usually designed arounds scenes or plot chunks. In a pre-scripted adventure, these are all predetermined to lead the PCs through a given story, reinforced with the ideas behind Objectives. For example, if the idea of a given scene is to infiltrate the castle dungeon to rescue the princess, then these would be the Objectives, and award Story Points. The scene might also have other objectives as well, such as freeing the other prisoners, convincing the mage to change sides, or defeating the jailer. All other actions besides these objectives do not reward the players significantly.

On the other end of the scale, you might not have such prescripted objectives, but instead might simply take a more free-form approach where you award the players for doing anything worth rewarding. You would still be using the scenes as plot chunks, but allowing the players to direct the story being told. This allows a great deal of flixibility because you can then follow up on those objectives in following scenes of your own creation.

I suppose that when I say story-driven I am referring to the fact that it rewards the players for creating and following the story. There are no rewards for stealing, killing enemies, finding loot, or completing quests unless it is part of the story. This is futher emphasised by the fact that players lose Story points at a more-or-less constant rate, and while other awards allow characters to gain Story Points, only Objective Awards do so at a rate which allows them to gain more than they lose.

The major difficulty with the system is that it requires a great deal of preparation before you can actually play. However, when playing freeform, much of this preparation is handed over to the players to deal with as a group rather than the system. In some cases, creating scenes stories and characters is an important part of the game in its own right.

In testing, I find that this system is pretty much a litmus test for the type of gamer involved. Lazy or unimaginative players tend to shy away from this system because of the thinking involved when designing characters and scenes, while those who really "get into" the creative element love it. The rules laywers hate it because there aren't any rules as such, where as those who simply go with the story and are content to let the director tell them what to roll, or actively come up with rules solultions for their actions tend to get more out of it.

[Selene Tan]

You could rearrange the order so it's "PICKS", which is pronounceable and kinda catchy in a "Pick PICKS!" kind of way. ;)

I think the  most interesting part is the story points and reward mechanic, with everything about characters coming out of the same pool of points, and rewarding/refreshing those points directly.

[Alan]

Hi Chris,

Welcome to the Forge.

I'm about to suggest you do some reading.  A lot of discussions here at the Forge use ideas and terminology we've developed over the years.  

These are all found at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ -

http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/   "Simulationism: the right to Dream"
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/   "Applied Theory"

You may also want to read at least the first few pages of these two:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/    "Gamism"
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/25/     "Narrativism"

--------------------------------------

I think you'll find that what's described in "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" is familiar to you.  


I think these articles will give you a perspective on your work - you may get some insight and also be better prepared to understand comments Forgers make about your work.

[Mike Holmes]

PCSIK was in my head for about 6 years, and i finally got around to putting it on paper last year. As such, I think you'll find that it actually started before Action!, FUDGE, and Fuzion even hit the development bench, let alone the store shelves. Even now I give myself a quite chuckle when I find mechanics to which I can say "Yeah, I did that with PCSIK..."

Well, FUDGE came to be in 1992, and Stephan had probably been working on it conceptually for quite a while (while working on GURPS). Action! is only a few years old, but is a descendant of Fuzion, which was published in 1997. Maybe more importantly, Fuzion is a lite version of Hero System combined with R. Talsorian's house rules, and first published as Hero System in 1989 (in turn descended from Champions 1980).

All of these systems use the phrase "gaming toolkit" (it's actually on the cover of Hero System). The concept is hardly a new one. Heck, GURPS is from even earlier, and claims some toolkitishness. I'm sure that I'm missing others that might fit, too. These are just what struck me from the start.

To be honest, I don't know what the advantages are, other than there are no real defined mechanic to tie you down.

Not sure what you mean here. There's a resolution mechanic, right? There are chargen mechanics, no? I get the feeling that when you say "no real defined" you mean something that I'm not getting. Can you elaborate?

Because I consider RPGs to be games about stories, PCSIK was developed around quite a few story-based ideas, quite a few of which were imported from the play/movie medium.

The ideas of scene framing and story points? Is that what you're refering to here?

Using dramatic conventions was probably first encoded strongly in the game Theatrix, 1993. Story Engine in 1999 comes up with the concept of "scene resolution." You might find these interesting reads.

Generic points that can be given out for whatever the GM likes, as opposed to EXP for killing and such, I think started with Champions again in 1980 (though I'm probably missing something earlier).

What other RPGs do you have experience with?

Also, I've had significant experience with different styles od games, so I've tried to keep it open to different types of game play.

How so? That is, how is it open to different styles of play? Simply by the rules being sparse, and the GM being able to reward whatever he wants? Or is there some other means to shift styles that I'm missing?

The scene might also have other objectives as well, such as freeing the other prisoners, convincing the mage to change sides, or defeating the jailer. All other actions besides these objectives do not reward the players significantly.

So what is the player input? If the player is expected, and incentivized to only do what's in the script, what does the player contribute to the process?

Have you read any of the essays available in the link at the top of the page? We have a lot of jargon that we use around here, and one of the terms is "Participationsism," for which you can find a definition in the glossary. Does this describe the style of play that you're trying to get to? Or is it somehow different?

On the other end of the scale, you might not have such prescripted objectives, but instead might simply take a more free-form approach where you award the players for doing anything worth rewarding. You would still be using the scenes as plot chunks, but allowing the players to direct the story being told.

This sounds vaguely like narrativism, but could be Open Simulationism, too.

This allows a great deal of flixibility because you can then follow up on those objectives in following scenes of your own creation.

Interesting. Do the players know in a scene in which you've defined objectives what they are up front?

I suppose that when I say story-driven I am referring to the fact that it rewards the players for creating and following the story.

Well, it rewards them for hitting their marks, or for whatever the GM wants to reward them for, right? Basically it's up to the GM to provide the right sort of objectives that will result in a story. Correct?

The major difficulty with the system is that it requires a great deal of preparation before you can actually play. However, when playing freeform, much of this preparation is handed over to the players to deal with as a group rather than the system.

When you say "freeform" you mean without preparation, correct? That term is usually used to mean a couple of other different things than "preparationless" so I want to be sure of what you mean.

In some cases, creating scenes stories and characters is an important part of the game in its own right.

For the players, or for the GM, or for both?

In testing, I find that this system is pretty much a litmus test for the type of gamer involved. Lazy or unimaginative players tend to shy away from this system because of the thinking involved when designing characters and scenes, while those who really "get into" the creative element love it.

Careful there. Instead of lazy or unimaginative, how about saying players who expect the system to support them in these endeavors? I mean, if one wanted to criticize your system in return, they could say that it's merely making more work for players by not having more rules to make the creative act easier. It's a matter of perspective. If a player likes the support that D&D, for instance, provides, that doesn't make them lazy or unimaginative, it's just a preference.

I mean, going by your logic, then you are lazy and uncreative by the criteria of what's sometimes called "freeform" RPG players who use no rules at all. I mean, if you don't need the system for some sort of support in play, then why use any system at all? Basically there is no point along the spectrum from complete freeform to a game like Rolemaster that's a "bad" level of rules. It's all just preference.

So what your game does, if it does what you say, is merely select strongly for a player with certain preferences. That has advantages and disadvantages.

Mike

[Da' Vane]

Thanks for the warm welcome, peeps. I'll get reading ASAP.

Well, FUDGE came to be in 1992, and Stephan had probably been working on it conceptually for quite a while (while working on GURPS). Action! is only a few years old, but is a descendant of Fuzion, which was published in 1997. Maybe more importantly, Fuzion is a lite version of Hero System combined with R. Talsorian's house rules, and first published as Hero System in 1989 (in turn descended from Champions 1980).

All of these systems use the phrase "gaming toolkit" (it's actually on the cover of Hero System). The concept is hardly a new one. Heck, GURPS is from even earlier, and claims some toolkitishness. I'm sure that I'm missing others that might fit, too. These are just what struck me from the start.

Thinking about it some more, I think it was a lot longer than six years ago, early ninties, around '92-ish. I just started secondary school, and being a poor English kid from a welfare supported family, I didn't actually have enough money to get much background material then. All I remember is seeing some of those systems mentioned in a magazine called Valkyrie along with some ideas. PCSIK actually become much more solid after an artical of adventure ideas for fight scenes for Feng Shui - the first ever PCSIK idea was a series of scenes detailing a covert insertion into the island stronghold of a criminal mastermind...

Howevever, I wasn't thinking so much of point by mechanics, than the actual concepts of character generation when I made this statement. Hero, Fuzion, and GURPs are all too "stiff" in my opinion from the experiences I've had with them. There are little changes, small things that I pick up on. But it's more about the fact that given the limited connection with these products I had, that such core principles are remarkably similar.

I suppose "As such, I think you'll find that it actually started before Action!, FUDGE, and Fuzion even hit the development bench, let alone the store shelves," was a pretty rash thing to say - but they are about par for when I initially started developing PCSIK properly as an idea, rather then thinking "hey wouldn't it be cool if..."

I'd ignore the dates on PCSIK itself - they all refer to when I actually managed to get myself to concentrate on it long enough to write it down, and attempt to make it look somewhat playable.

Not sure what you mean here. There's a resolution mechanic, right? There are chargen mechanics, no? I get the feeling that when you say "no real defined" you mean something that I'm not getting. Can you elaborate?

Yes and no. The resolution mechanic isn't fixed, and defining it is part of the point with PCSIK. The "standard" is to roll a number of d10 and score under the relevent characteristic. There are a number of variants to change this depending upon your game, as well as to include ideas like criticals. It's more of an idea than an actual mechanic.

As for Character Generation/Advancement, the only real mechanic is points buy, with a few rough guidelines on how you might work out values for your game.

The ideas of scene framing and story points? Is that what you're refering to here?

Using dramatic conventions was probably first encoded strongly in the game Theatrix, 1993. Story Engine in 1999 comes up with the concept of "scene resolution." You might find these interesting reads.

Generic points that can be given out for whatever the GM likes, as opposed to EXP for killing and such, I think started with Champions again in 1980 (though I'm probably missing something earlier).

What other RPGs do you have experience with?

Possibly. Like I said, this was first developed as an idea around 1992, at which time didn't have that much idea about RPGs, and only a handful of concepts of what I wanted.

This was actually taken from the idea behind skirmish wargames and boardgames just as hero quest and necromunda (most GW stuff, which was my biggest influence at the time). They award specific goals within the scene, and you can combine those into a story.

I was referring to scene framing and story points, but not so much that they exist, but how they are used. A scene can be a single event, a single room, or even an entire dungeon. it could even be an entire day if you wanted it to be. The bits in between can be filled with fade to blacks, cutscenes, and exposition monologues to or can become scenes in their own right. Another option is that the players can play competatively like you can with a skirmish game, allowing them to design and play both the villains and the heroes during the course of a camapign.

As of then, my only real RPG experience was with WFRP and D&D, but even those I was playing much looser with the XP mechanics than those systems would suggest. I was also playing Fighting Fantasy.

Since then, I have picked up experience with Hero, Storyteller, GURPs, Fuzion, Call of Cthulu, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Starwars, and D20, as well as several others I can't really remember the names of.

How so? That is, how is it open to different styles of play? Simply by the rules being sparse, and the GM being able to reward whatever he wants? Or is there some other means to shift styles that I'm missing?

Well, you can play traditional tabletop RPGs using tradition tabletop conventions, be it D&D, Shadowrun, o Vampire, with various balances of rules. However, you can also run skirmish games with it, which can be either co-op or competative, which is a big difference from standard tabletop RPGs. In fact, you can play a skirmish game like Necromund or Inquisitor, and have the players either part of the same gang, even play as opposition for each other as well as facing foes under the Director's control.

So what is the player input? If the player is expected, and incentivized to only do what's in the script, what does the player contribute to the process?

Have you read any of the essays available in the link at the top of the page? We have a lot of jargon that we use around here, and one of the terms is "Participationsism," for which you can find a definition in the glossary. Does this describe the style of play that you're trying to get to? Or is it somehow different?

The player is incentivized to do what is only in the script, but the group themselves actually design that script. If the group want a tactical game, then they can play using clearly stated objectives which they much achieve. If they want a more free-form game then the director can simply make the script up as they go along, awarding the players as they go. The balance of this depends upon the group's style. You can play old-skool D&D quite easily simply by awarding the PCs for killing monsters and finding treasure only. If monetary gain is not a factor in the game, the players get no benefit for finding or earning money, and spending resources acquiring it is a waste.

The definition of participationism is not entirely applicable here, because there is no real force involved as such. It's partly about the GM telling the players what they should try to do, but only if the players want the GM to tell them that.

On the other end of the scale, you might not have such prescripted objectives, but instead might simply take a more free-form approach where you award the players for doing anything worth rewarding. You would still be using the scenes as plot chunks, but allowing the players to direct the story being told.

This sounds vaguely like narrativism, but could be Open Simulationism, too.

If, by Open Simulationism, you mean that the players know they are taking part in a RPG and are supposed to act in accordance to this knowledge, then yes.

Reading the glossary this is probably best defined as Simulationism for the Gamist. It is a sandbox RPG, where building the rules you play by are as much of the experience as actually playing the game. All the players help build these rules, via the two halves of the gameplay - Characters and Scenes.

Interesting. Do the players know in a scene in which you've defined objectives what they are up front?

If they want to, yes. It should be fairly obvious what some of the objectives are anyway, based upon the situation in the scene, and previous gameplay. They would definately know if the scene is the result of the player's actively following up on something or requesting to do something. And some things should be screaming "sub-plot" to the players as soon as they are encountered - even if all the PCs have to do to complete said sub-plot is in that one scene or handled by a cutscene afterwards.

Well, it rewards them for hitting their marks, or for whatever the GM wants to reward them for, right? Basically it's up to the GM to provide the right sort of objectives that will result in a story. Correct?

Pretty much, except that it isn't just the GM which defines what's worth rewarding and what the objectives are. The players might seek to rescue the princess from the mages tower, but they may also be after some kewl artefacts he's been hoarding. Perhpas the party arcanist wants to filch some grimoires to study from, or even try to convince the mage to teach him (possibly making this an objective only he can get rewarded for).

When you say "freeform" you mean without preparation, correct? That term is usually used to mean a couple of other different things than "preparationless" so I want to be sure of what you mean.

I'm a very literal person, so I mean freeform as in free of form or in a free form. Loose, make it up as you go along, type play. So, if you have a fight in a warehouse, and one of the players decides to through another character into a bunch of crates, they can make up what happens on the spot. or, with preparation, the GM could come up with what happens in this situation beforehand. However, freeform in this context can also apply to story structure, so you can simply make up the next scene after finsihing the previous one, rather than preplanning the story for the players ot go through.

In some cases, creating scenes stories and characters is an important part of the game in its own right.

For the players, or for the GM, or for both?

Both, although some of the players that have tested this have been less enthusiastic about the creative element, preferring to see a list of what you can and cannot be or do rather than come up with it from scratch.

Careful there. Instead of lazy or unimaginative, how about saying players who expect the system to support them in these endeavors? I mean, if one wanted to criticize your system in return, they could say that it's merely making more work for players by not having more rules to make the creative act easier. It's a matter of perspective. If a player likes the support that D&D, for instance, provides, that doesn't make them lazy or unimaginative, it's just a preference.

I mean, going by your logic, then you are lazy and uncreative by the criteria of what's sometimes called "freeform" RPG players who use no rules at all. I mean, if you don't need the system for some sort of support in play, then why use any system at all? Basically there is no point along the spectrum from complete freeform to a game like Rolemaster that's a "bad" level of rules. It's all just preference.

So what your game does, if it does what you say, is merely select strongly for a player with certain preferences. That has advantages and disadvantages.

Nope - the playtest gene pool was severly lacking when this was tested. I make no assumptions about you or anybody else - just that these types of players shy away from it, usually with those reasons (although they don't call themselves lazy or uncreative).

If somebody WAS to criticise PCSIK by saying that it's merely making more work for players by not having more rules to make the creative act easier, I'd respond with the fact that that is partly the point. It's not about telling you what to play or how to play as such, but letting you play how you want to play.

I can understand the "why use rules at all" argument, although it kind of falls apart as soon as you mention cowboys and indians or cops and robbers. PCSIK can accomodate them, and has been compared favourably to games like the Window system (although not that favourably, because the suggestion to play Window came up during the PCSIK playtest - Like I said, the playtest genepool was severly lacking), as well as others with even less rules that I can't quite remember at the moment.

Theoretically, you don't even need the rules, and can just use the PCSIK conventions for story pacing to play, but that requires the GM to have excelent sense of story to balance the needs of success and failure to make the game worthwhile.

Specifically though, lazy refers to those who cannot be bothered to come up with the rules, however simple. If you want PCSIK to be simple, you can make it simple - want it complex, and it can be complex. Unimaginative refers to those that cannot come with something they want to play without looking at a list. If you can think of it, you can create it an play it. The unimaginative can't think of it.

Of course, I actually consider myself both lazy and unimaginative - I can't be bothered to write out reams of rules when I don't think anybody will use them, and I tend to work more on converting exisitng ideas from one format to another than creating truly original works. PCSIK is about as original as it gets for me.

[Da' Vane]

Reading the glossary, I think the best way to describe PCSIK is that it assumes all players are taking the "Director's Stance" with their characters, both inside and outside of the actual stories being told.

[Mike Holmes]

Lots to respond here, and I don't have time for it all. I'll hit one point, however:

I can understand the "why use rules at all" argument, although it kind of falls apart as soon as you mention cowboys and indians or cops and robbers.

I must not have made myself clear here. People do play with the only system being "be nice, and try to make your narration fit everyone else's" and it works just fine. I can give you hundreds of examples if you'd like to see some. You absolutely do not need to have any mechanics to play an RPG. It's just a preference.

Mike

[Da' Vane]

Lots to respond here, and I don't have time for it all. I'll hit one point, however:

I can understand the "why use rules at all" argument, although it kind of falls apart as soon as you mention cowboys and indians or cops and robbers.

I must not have made myself clear here. People do play with the only system being "be nice, and try to make your narration fit everyone else's" and it works just fine. I can give you hundreds of examples if you'd like to see some. You absolutely do not need to have any mechanics to play an RPG. It's just a preference.

Mike

I know.

Except that "be nice, and try to make your narration fit everyone else's" is in itself is a rule. In essence, the Social Contract is the rules set for Roleplying, with actual mechanics used being defined by that contract as a subset of rules ("Let's play D&D"). Cops and Robbers and Cowboys and Indians are an example what happens without a Social Contract, rather than without Mechanics.

When choosing the mechanics for a given game, choosing not to use a specific system, or any system at all, are both valid choices. Just as Atheism and Agnosticism are valid types of religion.

[Alan]

I'm not expecting accolades here - but I thought somebody may want to use the ideas in here for something.

(I'm not much of a writer, ...)

(Actually I thought the text was quite well written.)

Anyway, Chris, I think you and Mike had gotten an adversarial tone in your exchange.  Your initial post said you were offering PCSIK as a source of ideas for other writers.  The good news I have is: you've got some clever ideas - the bad news is: they're ideas we've seen before and which have been used in many indie games.  This doesn't lessen your achievement of coming up with them however.

Now, with that out in the open, what is your objective for PCSIK?  Would you like more insight into the effect your various mechanics choices have on the kind of play produced?  (We call them switches and dials.)

For example, you leave the choice of pre-scripting or no pre-scripting to the group.  This does indeed make a huge difference to the style of play produced, as will who does the scripting and who gets to insert new ideas.  (This also suggests the question: do you assume the existance of a GM as a separate kind of player, or do the players distribute that role differently.)

I see that your resolution system is based on tasks - activities the character's do - have you considered the possibility of resolution that resolves conflict instead of tasks?  You might want to search "conflict resolution" in the forums.  

Likewise, you might want to search for "reward systems."  PCSIK rewards are for "gains" and "losses" and group-definable "objectives."  You could elaborate on how a group can refine its style of play by refining what they reward and what the rewards do for the player.  If a group decides to reward killing monsters and getting treasure, and uses the reward points to make their character's more powerful, you'll get a different kind of play from a system that rewards exploring character and inventing details - or from a system that rewards making ethically-loaded choices.  Here too, who sets the standards and who gives the rewards?

All the options I've thrown out have been used in rpg design, in different combinations.  No combination is "the best" though some are "the best for a particular purpose."  

So, what can we do for you?

[Da' Vane]

Anyway, Chris, I think you and Mike had gotten an adversarial tone in your exchange. Your initial post said you were offering PCSIK as a source of ideas for other writers. The good news I have is: you've got some clever ideas - the bad news is: they're ideas we've seen before and which have been used in many indie games. This doesn't lessen your achievement of coming up with them however.

Sorry - nothing was meant to be adversarial in my tone.

Like I said, I hadn't seen any of the other systems when deigning PCSIK, and when I was refining it enough to write it down, I had only limited exposure to some of those sources, but not enough to influence PCSIK other than through a few broad ideals. Like GURPS being modular.

Now, with that out in the open, what is your objective for PCSIK? Would you like more insight into the effect your various mechanics choices have on the kind of play produced? (We call them switches and dials.)

To be honest, I no longer have any objectives for PCSIK. I am content to let it die a death as a pipe dream, or lat anybody who wants it to have it. I'm only really good working with a team and/or with public feedback. PCSIK failed to have either of those, so the project just died after I wrote the module. I simply couldn't be bothered because I don't write for myself - I keep it all in my head.

For example, you leave the choice of pre-scripting or no pre-scripting to the group. This does indeed make a huge difference to the style of play produced, as will who does the scripting and who gets to insert new ideas. (This also suggests the question: do you assume the existance of a GM as a separate kind of player, or do the players distribute that role differently.)

I assume nothing here. The GM (called Director because that's the biggest part of his job in the less freeform games) can be seperate for the traditional tabletop experience, although for the more tactical styles of play such a player isn't really neccessary. Theoretically, even in freeform tabletop play, the GM isn't truely neccessary - the group can award each other Story Points based upon how well their characters advanced the story, or they might round-robin the creative scene development duties (or, if going freeform, simply assign one player as a temporary GM for that scene). It's all down to the Social Contract of what the players want to do really.

I see that your resolution system is based on tasks - activities the character's do - have you considered the possibility of resolution that resolves conflict instead of tasks? You might want to search "conflict resolution" in the forums.

Um, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't conflict resolution mean "whoever rolls the highest succeeds?"

Task resolution seems to fit better with the system, since it is adaptable to play without a GM. If the Scenes are significantly well developed, all the numbers for the tasks in the scene means that players can play through it, either co-operatively or competatively without needing to roll for the other side of conflict resolution.

Not that I considered it - I have more experience with task resolution systems.

Likewise, you might want to search for "reward systems." PCSIK rewards are for "gains" and "losses" and group-definable "objectives." You could elaborate on how a group can refine its style of play by refining what they reward and what the rewards do for the player. If a group decides to reward killing monsters and getting treasure, and uses the reward points to make their character's more powerful, you'll get a different kind of play from a system that rewards exploring character and inventing details - or from a system that rewards making ethically-loaded choices. Here too, who sets the standards and who gives the rewards?

Once again, this is determined by the Social Contract the players agree to. Usually, it is the GM character if there is one, but if there isn't a GM these can be either predefined by the scene in question, or collectively by the group.

Loss rewards are fairly static across the board, and work as a rebate for taking an expendable wather than permanent feature. It also rewards sacrifice by off-setting some of the Story point "bleeding" that occurs during play.

Gain rewards are simply a method of allowing the players to keep effects across scenes in a realistic manner. The choice is that they keep the gained effect or gain Story points equal to it's current value. Like objective rewards, the group gets to define what is worth keeping and what isn't. If you want a high-action modern game, then the group probably won't be wanting to loot silverware and art treasures, but instead focus on weapons and and equipment to help them in their endevours. In more tactical gameplay, the players might not even want to do this, not allowing effects to carry across scenes at all.

[Selene Tan]

Conflict resolution definitely does not mean "whoever rolls the highest succeeds". In task resolution, you resolve whether a particular task succeeds. In conflict resolution, you resolve whether a particular goal succeds. e.g., someone says "I want to impress that girl by lifting a big rock over my head." Task resolution answers whether they can lift the rock; it doesn't say anything about the girl's reaction. Conflict resolution answers whether or not the girl is impressed; it doesn't say anything about whether the rock gets lifted. You can check out http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/ConflictResolution for some links.

[Da' Vane]

Oh. I'm not sure I get the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution, other than it appears as if Task Resolution breaks down the intended aim into component steps.

I'm not sure I get your example Selene, but surely Task Resolution would require two checks for that example - one for lifting the rock, and a second for showboating enough to impress the girl. It might be possible to do it in one task by combining these two components into one roll - in PCSIK this would be best represented by increasing the difficulty of the lifting check to see whether you can lift that rock with style.

That said, Task Resolution seem best to represent the ability for each character to reflect their strengths and weaknesses. Those who are stealthy can sneak past the guards, while those who have the gift of the gab can bluff their way past. Scary heroes might simply intimidate them, and rich ones might use bribary.

However, the Objective system seems to reward the players based on Conflict Resolution. Getting past the guards might reward the players, regardless of how they do it. Although this can be specified - for example getting past the guards without alerting them. In free form play, you would also be doling out objective rewards based on the conflicts resolved rather than the steps taken.

In essence, the game rewards you for where you go, while the system concentrates on how you get there.

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry - nothing was meant to be adversarial in my tone.

Probably all me. Don't worry about it.

Another term to get aquainted with, "The Lumpley Principle." Yes, all RPGs have a "system." My point was merely that there's nothing a priori about the density of the rules in your game that makes it superior to another. As such, any player who dislikes the lack of support that it gives cannot be said to be lazy or uncreative based on not liking the system. That might have been true of the people that you played with, but we can't know from the system. It may be that with a few more constraints on play that they'd suddenly become "Energetic" and "creative." Happens all the time.

Mike