[FH8] A nearly functional Fantasy Heartbreaker

[Eric Provost]

This is my eighth attempt at creating a fantasy heartbreaker.  It's taken me that many attempts to figure out that I needed to determine the point of the game long before I started working on mechanisms.  A solid 'duh' for most here, but, well... Heh.  

So, here's what I have so far.  It's my desire to take a narratiave approach to exploring 'What is Heroism?'.

[Edit]  Tried to preview and hit submit accidentally... this post still under construction.

[Eric Provost]

In keeping with true Heartbreaker style, I think I've come up with something worth developing that I really don't know how to develop properly.  See, no matter what fantasy game we're playing, we end up creating/re-creating the setting as we play over time, right?  So, I was thinking that it would be interesting to create a game that supported the creation of setting with the system.  

I'd really like feedback/ideas on that function.  

I have lots of other things I'd like to pass by the regular Forgites here, but right now a general review and critisism of what I've got so far (which is really just a re-assembling of different parts of different games), and some ideas on the setting creation support mechanisms.

-Eric

[xenopulse]

Eric,

That's an interesting start. I like the idea of creating the setting as you go. That said, it seems that most of the creation of setting is in two places right now:

1) Character Creation
2) GM creates Setting pieces for episodes

That's not really a radical proposition. I would like to see the players have a strong ability to create Setting during the game, I think that would be closer to your stated goal. You can do it via their advancement, in a way, but you could also give them the power to make up NPCs (like Burning Wheel Revised's Circles), groups, history, or even places during the game.

You have some creation mechanisms by adopting the Fallout, but that seems to create more Situation for the characters rather than the overall Setting of the game.

The character and resolution systems are not really connected at this point, so it's hard to say how that's going to play out.

The episode creation guidelines make sense and should serve their purpose well.

[Eric Provost]

Hey, thanks for your feedback.  I really appreciate it.  

I've been mostly pondering over the creating setting issue for the past couple days.  Truth be told, I was almost ready to ditch the whole idea in the interest of just finally getting a complete game out of my head and onto paper.  But then, I realized that, being the most difficult part of what I've been writing, that was probably my sign that it was worth working on.  That and the fact that everyone I've talked about the system to latched right onto that bit as interesting.  So, I'm attacking it.

I was half asleep a few minutes ago, with an old episode of Law and Order on the TV, when it kinda hit me.  Half of it anyway.  The back half from my POV.  Setting is just another part of the SIS.  It needs to be negotiated in just like anything else.  Therefore, if player A attempts to incorporate a bit of setting that player B dosen't care for, why not have a conflict resolution system for determining who's version of the setting joins the SIS?

Yup that's it.  That's my revelation.  Only half the second part really.  Now I've gotta consider what that particular system should be for FH8.  Yup gotta consider that.  

Okies, I actually had one more bit to this.  A kind of partial play experience that came through my noggin in my half awake status.  And... well, let's see if I can translate that thought onto the thread here...

Player A:  It's widely known that the Clan of the Green Ninja seeks vengance against the Clan of the Purple Daisy and will do anything to destroy them.
Player B:  Um, yeah, but isn't the Clan of the Green Ninja already well known as a bunch of isolationist pacifists?  How did they get this bad attitude, and how are they gonna seek vengance?  
Player A:  Cuz it's kewl!  Draw!
[players draw cards]
Player B:  In the seventh dynasty, the head of the Green Ninja Clan broke his sword and swore never to do violence against anyone again.  [... and I play a card to back this claim]
Player A:  And in the eighth dynasty, the Purple Daisy clan snuck into their compound and poked every member of the Green Ninjas with blunt twigs for months on end, just for the fun of it, and because the Ninjas wouldn't do anything about it.  This led to the 100 years of frustration and anger, which is just waiting to be released.  [... and I play a card to support this claim]

etc.

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Opinions?

Oh, and the first part that I hinted at earlier?  Providing incentive and motivation for players to introduce elements of setting.

Oh, and another thought:  I can totally see this even happening with locations;  There's a lake at the end of this road.  Yeah, but it was drunk by giants three generations ago.  

Time for more pondering.

-Eric

[Eric Provost]

Okies.  I think I may be on to something.  Simple but effective.  Check out the paragraph titled Creating Setting.  It's only a quick overview of the When of creating setting, which I tend to attach to my previous post's How (when conflicted) to create setting.  

I've got plenty more thoughts in my head, but that was the one that was necessary to bring them all together.

Now, unfortunately, I've got 10 minutes to get up and out of the house to get to work.  I expect to polish up the fine details of what's rattling around in my head shortly.

-Eric

[Eric Provost]

Well, working on Creating Setting led me to a bunch of questions.  See, I'd created that bit that's posted there, where players bid back and forth on setting elements, and I thought it was really neat and interesting, but I realized that what I'd created really didn't cover every circumstance and it didn't include any expectations for the players to create elements of setting.  So, I opened up my thread on Setting and the SIS, and discovered what I needed to know.

Here's the simplified version of how I see elements of setting introduced in pretty much every game I've ever played in;

Negotiate Broad Outline ->  Broad Outline -> Permissable Assumptions -> Explicit Proposal -> Negotiation -> Validation or Denial -> Potential Re-Negotiation

Negotiating the broad outline usually occurrs when you talk about playing a certain game with friends.  When you agree to play Call of Cthulhu circa 1920, you've agreed to a broad outline.  When you agree to play GURPS Vampire, you've agreed to a broad outline.  Some games intentionally try to avoid any broad outline at all.  The so-called 'universal' games.  But even these games tend to bring just a touch of the broad outline with them by way of their rules.  An outline that is almost always broadened moments after agreeing to it, as a modifier is certain to be attached.  I've never played FUDGE, but I'm under the impression that it's about as universal as you can get.  When a group decides to play FUDGE, they're almost always going to include the broad outline of the setting they wanna play;  FUDGE StarWars, FUDGE Fantasy, etc.  If anyone can think of a situation where no real broad outline is created pre-play, either by social contract or by text-system, I'd love to hear about it.

The permissible assumptions are the elements of setting that one can reasonably expect or not expect based upon the broad outline.  In 1920's Cthulhu I could reasonably expect zombies, the city of Paris, or Zepplins, but would likely be a little put off by lightsabres and hovercars.

The last four steps, explicit proposal, negotiation, validation or denial, and re-negotiation are commonly handled as the GM proposes, the players may verbally object based upon the broad strokes, but with nothing more than their place in the social structure to really back them up to reach validation or denial, with re-negotiation usually falling back on post-game discussions to determine if certain elements should be reconsidered.  (Should zepplins really be that common? etc)  

In more modern games, the authority to make an explicit proposal is more often spread around to all the players instead of just to the GM.  I'm imagining that there may be a modern system that allows for formalized negotiation between players over introduction of setting elements, but unfortunately for me, I've never played any of these games.  So, I'm imagining that these games generally allow for formal negotiation on the stage-setting level, as opposed to the Known World level.  Meaning that the formal system for negotiation allows players to determine if there should be a lightsabre in the room, but not to formally negotiate if there should be ligtsabres in the setting at all.  I'd very much like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, as I'd like to look closely at any games that do this.  Especially if they do it well.

Right now, this is what I'm pondering creating;

[*]Minimal broad-strokes inclusive in the text.
[*]Formalized method for collaborative negotiation and creation of the broad strokes of the known world.
[*]Formalized method for collaborative negotiation in expanding and modifying the broad strokes of the known world.[/list:u]

-Eric

[Mike Holmes]

Check out some of the design threads for Universalis, and you'll see that Ralph and I went through precisely what you're going through. Despite the fact that Universalis is now a "generic" sort of game, it started out not like that at all, but instead, pretty precisely how you started out.

What I'm thinking is that were we took a right turn into genericness, you can avoid that and stick with a ruleset that adheres better to the rest of your system.

Mike

[Eric Provost]

Thanks Mike.  By coincidence I just now figured out that Uni tackles some of these concerns and was in the process of looking it all up.  I didn't realize there were Uni design threads here though.  I was somehow under the impression that Uni predated the Forge, or was created before you came to the Forge.

Thanks.

-Eric

[MarkMeredith]

I like the idea behind your game. It really lends itself to the Heroic (Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts, etc.) I like it.

[Eric Provost]

Thanks Mark,

Check back to that link in a day or so.  I'm typing up a polished version that ties all the traits I've got there together in solid rules.  And I'm hoping that what's tumbling around in my head about setting creation will become something useful soon.

-Eric

[Eric Provost]

Hiya all,

I've written and published an updated version of Creating Character for FH8.  I've also created a simple little index page here that will link to all my versions as I write them.  

I expect to finish writing up and publishing the Delta version today.  I've got stacks and stacks of notes to dig though to make sure I got everything just so.  

The bit on Creating Setting still needs some brewing, but I'm hoping to have a rough version of it included in this Delta version today.

As usual, comments are appreciated.

-Eric

[ErrathofKosh]

Finally, every player will determine if they think that their character is seeking a Heroic or Villainous goal in this conflict. Remember that the buck stops with you about your character, but everyone’s encouraged to comment on everyone else’s choice. Once the decision’s been made, draw the a number of cards equal to the Hero/Villain rating you’ve chosen.

Some questions...

When you determine if you have a Heroic/Villainous goal, am I correct in stating that you choose the rating of that goal as well?  Or is the rating you use based upon your hero/villian score in some way?  And finally, what effects does choosing one or other goal have upon your hero/villian score?

This seems to be at the core of the game; and I like what you have so far.

[Eric Provost]

Thanks Johnathan, I'm glad you're liking it.

Lemmie clarify the Hero/Villain thing.

The rating I was referring to in that paragraph is entirely the Hero/Villain score of your character.  If you're Hero 4/Villain 1 and you decide that what your character is doing is Villainous, then you start the conflict off with 1 card in your hand.

Choosing one or the other has only the most indirect effect on your H/V score... but that's where the heart of the game comes out.  Lemmie see if I can articulate how I see this happening, but first I'll sum up the ebb and flow of the H/V score:

[*]You start out with your H/V score leaning in one direction or the other.
[*]You justify using either H or V at the beginning of a conflict to the other players.  The other players comment on their thoughts on your use of H or V in this circumstance.
[*]As a Consequence of a conflict your H/V score might be slightly altered or radically altered.  You are requred to explain this change to the other players and the other players are expected to comment on your change.[/list:u]

So, let's say that you get into a conflict where your character is trying to convince your sister, healer of the Emperor, to NOT heal someone.  But you're gonna say that it's a Heroic deed (mostly motivated by your 4pts in H).  I'd expect the other players to jump up and ask WTF?  Heroic?  To convince someone to NOT help?  Now you've gotta dance and jive.  Tell some story.  Explain why your character is being so heroic.  Now we might just get a little insight into your views on Heroism.  And those views on heroism should have an effect on our views, most directly by how we're going to explain our H/V scores and usage in the future.

Hows that sound?  Make sense?

-Eric

[xenopulse]

Eric,

the Delta is a great leap forward in your design.  I can really see something very cool developing.

A couple of questions:

1. Why can't players add to existing Twining ratings in-game?

2. Are played cards used up?  If so, do you redraw for your H/V after a trick?  What if you run out of cards?

I do like the way that characters who barely win the token take high fallout.

Looking forward to more on your setting creation ideas.

[Eric Provost]

Ooh, interesting questions!  I'm so excited!

1)  It's only a half-formed thought right now.  Something in my brain about how Advancement should take care of that.  But just you asking why has done some damage to that shaky ground.  If I finish up Advancement and can't answer that question properly, then it's apparent to me that the little bit of rule is unnecessary and unhelpful.

2a)  Cards are used up during a conflict, so you only get a total of 52 cards for any conflict.  

2b)  You never get to redraw your H/V in a conflict.  You draw one or the other at the beginning of the conflict.  (When you want more cards, you need to bring in an Advantage or a Twining)

2c)  Being that a conflict is mathmatically limited to no more than 10 turns with a maximum 'base value' of 4 cards played (a 4 of a kind play) and four cards that can be just added to play (4 aces) that's a max of 44 cards you can play (10 turns of 4 of a kind play plus the 4 aces).  Funny that I just now did the math for that, but it means that you can't run out of cards in a single conflict.

As for the setting creation rules.  I put a little something up there that's the core of my thoughts right now.  Didja see the Delta version with the bullet statements under Creating Setting?  Right now all it has is permissions and negotiations for creating setting.  I'm dissapointed in my lack of expectations.  I still have some ideas in the back of my noggin for all that, but I think what it's going to take is to settle on Just How Much setting I expect everyone to create every session.

I expect to keep the Creating Setting rules tied directly to the Currency rules.  What I'm thinking of right now, that ill-formed bit of expectation that I want, is to create a Reward of coins based upon being the first one every setting to fulfull a certain aspect of setting that's expected to be expanded on every session.

But then I run into who get's to say what first, how to introduce the elements of setting that fulfill those aspects, etc.  

It's there, it's a seed, and I think it's growing nicely.  If slowly.

-Eric