A new game, a new member. Realm by Apemantus.

[Henry Danaher]

Hi!

My name is Apemantus, and I'm new to the Forge, but I've been playing RPG's (mainly D&D) for a while now. I'm in the process of designing my own game for the first time, and I wanted to see what other some other game players might think of the material. For a tentative name, call my game "Realm."

I'll give you a glimpse of what I'm making with my RPG. I want to hieghten the experience of roleplaying, and one mechanic which I've come up with is to hide the statistics from the players.

I feel that when someone sees thier character's abilities summarized in a list of numbers, that necessarily hieghtens the distance a player feels between himself and the character: the character has become nakedly a third person avatar, and in any die roll the probabilities of success can be known.  We already know what he can and cannot do; it remains simply to decide what direction to send him. 

However, this is very much unlike real life. The dice rolls of life are hidden from us, and this imposes a fantastic uncertainty upon us, about our potentials and what will become of us. When a character is rolled, the player immediately knows: alright, this one would make a good "___", and proceeds to roleplay that. But much of the excitement of life comes from self-discovery, and I believe that role-playing would be all the better if the characters themselves had a bit of mystery about them, like we do to ourselves. So character abilities in my system are rolled by the DM (well, actually there are multiple DM's in a sense, I'll get to that), and the players never know: they must get a feel of thier characters' abilities by playing.

Some effects of this. It eliminates the familiar situation plaguing any roleplaying system which rolls stats: that situation where someone rolls a character that is 'not ideal' in some way. Thus the wonder that the player felt for the character he planned on playing is already lost, before the game even begins. This is because the player discovers his character's limitations before the game even begins, and thus makes the character incredibly shallow. By the time a player discovers what his character can anad cannot do under the system I've designed, that character will have had a long life and many stories to tell. Thus an uninteresting character will be hard to find, because we're never quite sure what the character is capable of. Combat becomes more suspenseful, of course, when you're not sure what you've got.

Another fantastic effect of the concept which I will now call the Hidden Dice feature, is the solution to another age old role playing problem, this one very, very general: the detail and excitement which can be afforded by complex rule sets vs. the difficulty of learning a complex system.  Right now, a complex system is renowned for being a bad one: it scares new users away, and someone who's never roleplayed before probably is intimidated. With Hidden Dice, beginners need not learn ANY rules. None. They simply role play, as they should. The players simply role play.

So, you've probably been wondering who the heck keeps track of all the stats, and whether piling everything upon the DM would kill this idea. Yes, making one person keep track of all of the statistics would be a serious flaw, and especially making the one who is telling the story do so. So I need to introduce a new kind of player. Add to the list of the DM the Protag and the Antag (Sorry if these words seem silly but I need a name for them). The Protag is the one who roleplays friendly NPC's and keeps charge of thier stats, and the Antag is the one who roleplays Enemy NPC's and keeps track of thier stats. The DM keeps track of the statistics he wishes to, delegating authority with NPC's to the Protag and the Antag. The DM, Protag, and Antag are a storytelling team, and the DM is the leader (all right, I'm going to have to start giving the 'DM' a different name, since perhaps it's no longer the exactly the same concept--the Realm Master, ok?). The Protag and Antag act in coordination which the RM's concept of the world although they are also roleplaying characters and should roleplay them autonomously most of the time, with general direction from the RM. As a side note, the RM roleplays as yet neutral characters.

This accomplishes a few things. It gives the faces of the enemy and that of the friends different faces. I believe this has a psychological effect. A player can look at the RM and think, 'I'm not sure whether he's trying to kill us or not, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to die, that'd ruin the game.' But if a person is only roleplaying the enemy, then a player thinks instead 'This guy really does want us dead.' And since the Antag is sincerely roleplaying the enemy, such a player would be right.

There are other things in this system I think are original. For example, the combat mechanics I've thought up for this system I think will make for exciting action sequences, and I'm developing a magic system, but I'll save these until we've had a chance to talk about the first idea.

So let's discuss. Perhaps this system could be finished sooner if I had a chance to share the ideas with other gamers. From what I've read of the Forge (over the last few days, as I'm new), I'll bet I get some good commentary.

[Jasper]

Hi there, and welcome to the Forge

(Is Apemantus your real name? We tend to do first names around here. E.g. I'm in fact named Jasper.)

Let me first try to summarize the main goals you've set forth here, and see if I've got them straight.

- Players don't know the full capabilities / nature of their characters; they have to explore them through play
- Players are completely insulated from the rules by the intervening GMs; they're supposed to role-play without reference to formal rules
- Two GMs have different roles, one friendly one hostile; they control different types of NPC accordingly.

These are all interesting goals, and I think you can definitely get some mileage out of them.

However, you say that you've mostly played D&D, and it kind of shows. In other words, from what you've said, Realm has been built in direct response to D&D, in an effort to address some of its shortcoming. Nothing wrong with that per se. But at at the same time, Realm has inheritted quite a lot from D&D, perhaps unwittingly, including a lot of assumptions about how RPGs work...assumptions which we're all rather fond of questioning around here (not to make it sound exclusionary -- you're a contributor to the Forge too now). In the interests of helping you with the game, people may ask you to reconsider some of those assumptions...and ask you to do some reading too, I'm afraid.

So, I'll first refer you to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5564.0 (the other "rants" in the series are worth reading as well).

But more specifically, I see some big assumptions built into Realm. The first that lept out at me is stats. You say upfront that you want to hide stats from players (for various reasons). But if stats are bad, why have them at all? If you don't want players to deal with them, why make GMs deal with them either? There are other options than "stats." Along with that is a reaction against apologists for rule-light games. You explained why you think Realm can get away with having a lot more rules (by hiding them from the Players) but you didn't exactly say why you want a lot of rules in the first place. And this really gets to the meat of the issue: rules shouldn't exist for no reason, but always to accomplish something very spcific that you need for your game. To help you with this thing, we need to know what Realm is really about. There are two questions we're fond of asking to get at that:

1. What do the characters do? Describe what happens "in game."
2. What do the players do? This is diffferent from #1. Players talk and think about the game, they move around resources, they make decisions. Imagine an actual session of Realm, and what players (including GMs) are doing and saying when the game is at its absolute best. What about play should have the players really excited? Describe that.

This is a lot to have thrown at you, but think about it, and ask more questions if you need to, and we'll do out best to help.

(Oh, one more smaller question that may help us out: what's your "publishing goal" for Realm? Up on a website for free? Pdf download? Print run? These options can be discussed more in depth in the Publishing forum, but it's nice to know where you want to go with it.)

[Henry Danaher]

Thanks Jasper! I'm impressed by the insight.

Yeah, and if people go by thier real names around here, I will too.

I'll get to your immediate questions. First, you're right in your appraisal of the game, when you summarized the main goals. These were the goals I intended.

About stats...I want to include them to make combat detailed and unexpectable. For example, instead of having turns in the usual sense, there's a mechanic where each action has a temporal length associated with it, and there are turns, but they do not rotate around the table necessarily. This I think creates the possibility of a true counterattack. Also I think it would reward creativity in regards to tactics, that is, the player is rewarded for making smart decisions, as the simple 'hit him with my weapon' is not always the best move to make.  Whereas (and you guessed it, this is a response to D&D) in D&D combat usually ends up being a loop of 'you try to hit me, and then i'll try to hit you, until someone dies,' with few variations of this theme.

I want to see players tripping, pushing, disarming, getting disabled, doing all sorts of things that always happen in real combat but were never tactically smart in D&D. I want weapons to have thier own advantages and disadvantages, and I want different attacks to have advantages and disadvantages, too. The bottom line is that the right choice should never be clear unless someone has really strategized.

So, I think that in order to make combat varied (by rewarding players who make varying rather than static moves in a dynamic combat environment rather than making the same move over and over), I think I need a more complex system to decide combat.

Plus, I think it fits with the concept of Hidden Dice. I want the players, when it's thier turn, to have to act immediately, to be under pressure. I want them to act creatively and intuitively, without regards to the probabilities involved. And in order to do so, they must be free from the knowledge of what the probabilities are.

So here's a picture of a scene of roleplaying, in combat because I think it will be similar to other rpg's in non-combat scenes.  I want the players, like I said to be in suspense, not just about who's going to live and die, but who's going next, what's thier foe's going to do next, etc. I want them to use words and not numbers to describe things.

And in non-combat situations I hope perhaps one thing will be different, as a result of Hidden Dice: the players will not only be exploring the world but also thier characters and thier capabilities.

One thing I also ought to mention. You may be wondering what the character improvement mechanic is, since that I'll bet is an important part of a game's design. I plan to make it fairly subjective, with the RM and his team giving improvement to skills when the character performs substantial use of that skill or finds a teacher. 

Oh, and another feature, which the hidden rules and dice makes possible. I thought a good reward to a player who roleplays well would be knowledge of a single small rule of the game. It gives him insight, and so would be  an attractive reward.

Well, I hope this fills out some of the fuzzy areas.

Thanks again for your advice. I'll get right to reading the link and then respond to that later.

[Henry Danaher]

Oh yeah, and about publishing, first and foremost I want to get it written and played by me and my friends. Well, of course it would be awesome to have it actually printed and published; is that likely or not? I'd like to try to get it published for real but if it isn't bought then I would probably post it on a web site.

Right now your link isn't working. It may have something to do with me being in Russia....I'll just try it again soon.

[LordSmerf]

Henry, welcome to the Forge!

First some game references.  I highly recommend Luke Crane's Burning Wheel for an excellent example of suspense in combat.  It's probably the best example I've seen.

One thing I'm curious about: If players have no idea how effective they might be, then doesn't that make it easy to upset their expectations?  "I sweep his legs out from under him, that's a creative and powerful maneuver!"  GM rolls some dice, "Oh, did I mention that you're not really a very good fighter?  You fail."  "But if I had known I wasn't a good fighter I would have done something else!"

See the problem?  If the player has no idea how effective his character is at accomplishing things, how does he know whether to attempt them?  That is, if he doesn't know his chances of success how does he decide whether the rewards are worth the risks?  Now, it's possible and valid that that's not even a consideration in your game, but then the question arises: what meaningful choices do the players make?

Thomas

[Jasper]

Henry,

Sorry abou the link, I don't know what happened there. Try this: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5564.0. You should also look at the articles section of The Forge, particularly Ron Edwards' Fantasy Heartbreaker articles. (And do check out Burning Wheel too.) They may change things a lot for you.

I think that in order to make combat varied...I need a more complex system to decide combat.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I don't see the connection here. D&D has a highly complex combat system, and yet you're not happy with it. Why do you want an even more complex one? What I'm saying is, you need to really take a close look at your goals, and then write rules to support each one. And for every rule, you need to be able to say, "I'm having rule X becasue rule X does exactly this, and this exactly supports goal Y." We can help with that here, of course. Your saying "I need a complex combat system" is kind of like me saying, "I want to really impress my boss at the office. Therefore, I'm going to go eat some fruit." Is eating fruit bad? No. Is impressing the boss bad? No. Do they have anything to do with one another? Maybe...but not in any obvious way.

[knicknevin]

If the player has no idea how effective his character is at accomplishing things, how does he know whether to attempt them?  That is, if he doesn't know his chances of success how does he decide whether the rewards are worth the risks?  Now, it's possible and valid that that's not even a consideration in your game, but then the question arises: what meaningful choices do the players make?

Thomas

Thats a good point... would it make more sense if the game was set up as the journey of discovery for these characters? If players start with a blank sheet and don't know the rules, then their characters must be very young and inexperienced; perhaps any session could reflect a different 'rite of passage' or life changing experience for the characters?

Plus, I think it fits with the concept of Hidden Dice. I want the players, when it's thier turn, to have to act immediately, to be under pressure. I want them to act creatively and intuitively, without regards to the probabilities involved. And in order to do so, they must be free from the knowledge of what the probabilities are.

Immediacy, creativity and intuition are all noble goals, but I have found, in most of my role playing sessions, that these are quite well served by a rule system that the players are aware of: the less they know about what they can do, the more they will be afraid to do... assessing the probabilities is an essential part of combat, at least for experienced combatants, so, going back to my suggestion, is the game based on the assumption that the characters are young & inexperienced? After just a very few fights, I would expect any surviving characters to have a very good idea about what does & doesn't work... if player knowledge & character knowledge are linked, then this is a good system for developing heroes from their very first steps on the path to glory, until they become legends, but not so good for representing heroes who already have well developed qualities & skills.

[greyorm]

I want them to act creatively and intuitively, without regards to the probabilities involved. And in order to do so, they must be free from the knowledge of what the probabilities are.

Henry, note that even though the dice rolls "in real life" are hidden from us (assuming that the results of our actions in real life are determined by a random factor), we all have a pretty good idea of our capabilities in a given situation. Can I lift that rock? Can I repair that computer? Can I understand that book? Can I write that paper? Can I talk to that girl? Can I draw a straight line? Can I hit that target?

I know, for example, when going into a fight whether or not I have a chance to beat someone physically (I know how strong I am, and I can see how tough the other guy looks), if I will have to be quick and clever in taking shots at the guy (because I know where to hit a person to make them hurt, no matter how big they are), or if I will need to run away or surrender (I will also likely be aware of whether or not I can run faster than that guy).

So the idea that hiding someone's stats or the rules from them is "more realistic" or will let them concentrate more on discovering the character is not entirely accurate from that point of view (well, unless you're role-playing the character from birth).

[Henry Danaher]

Thanks for the reading list...I definitely need to check out what's out there before I attempt to improve on it.
I'll answer some questions.

One thing I'm curious about: If players have no idea how effective they might be, then doesn't that make it easy to upset their expectations?  "I sweep his legs out from under him, that's a creative and powerful maneuver!"  GM rolls some dice, "Oh, did I mention that you're not really a very good fighter?  You fail."  "But if I had known I wasn't a good fighter I would have done something else!"

See the problem?  If the player has no idea how effective his character is at accomplishing things, how does he know whether to attempt them?  That is, if he doesn't know his chances of success how does he decide whether the rewards are worth the risks?  Now, it's possible and valid that that's not even a consideration in your game, but then the question arises: what meaningful choices do the players make?

I would say that during the game the player's expectations of his character are continuously modified. And it would never be as simple as "did I mention you're not really a very good fighter;" the player would try many times until he is confident that his character is not a good fighter after all. I'm not sure I see the problem, actually...he chooses to attempt things if that is what his character wants to do. Now, just because the character doesn't know his exact stats doesn't mean he is completely ignorant of his physical stature, his experience, or his skill, etc. I think the uncertainty makes the choices more meaningful, not less, as it is more or less a definition of identity rather than an expression of the probabilities, i.e. the character acts because he feels that's the right move rather than Knowing it because the numbers are right in front of his face.

Toward Jasper's last reply, I disagree that D&D combat resolution is complex, but that may have something to do with my inexperience with other games and therefore lack of a basis for comparison. Again, I'll get to reading about other systems right away.

would it make more sense if the game was set up as the journey of discovery for these characters? If players start with a blank sheet and don't know the rules, then their characters must be very young and inexperienced;

This is true; I do want the characters to start out 'young' and at the beginning of thier adventuring careers.
It is an interesting point about whether players will be afraid to try new things, or decide that one strategy is superior. But the design of my mechanics for combat resolution, I think, will make characters afraid to try the same thing too often, and certain only that no one strategy is best for every situation. Obviously, my combat resolution system is going to seem complex. And I think it probably is, if the D&D combat resolution is complex.

Realm will represent heroes of developed skill by simply improving thier skills: players will know they are getting better as it shows in the game; I think that this represents real life, as skill must always be demonstrated and never assumed.

Assume there's a quote of greyorm's entire post here, as since it's the most recent I ought not to use up all the space...we all have 'a pretty good idea,' yes, but we don't know the exact probabilities; when going into a fight, we can 'see how strong he looks' without knowing the quantification in numbers of that strength. Actually I think that you're helping out my case...it IS more realistic to hide the stats because then characters make thier decisions based on

1. past experience
2. sensory knowledge of the situation
3. reasoning

and NOT, however with the knowedge of the NUMERICAL probabilities involved.

That is, players have only a 'good idea' of what they are capable of, just as you stated is the case for real life. What is very much unlike real life is the idea that each situation can be represented numerically; it is an abstraction that we are forced to accept for the game and it is best that it is far away as possible from the actual decision making of the players, in order that they make decision based on the experience of the characters from the character's point of view and not the metagame point of view.

I hope I answered your questions, and keep the great commentary coming!

I will try to post my 1. specific goals of the system and 2. how the specific mechanics of the game support those goals, as you guys directed. I agree that that is necessary for organized discussion.

[knicknevin]

OK, this may be pretty much a stream of conciousness, I'm just going to hit out the ideas as they come to me...

An Assumption: Players need to see their character's stats in order to know what they can do... your game is questioning this assumption, so the crux is, what do players need to know in order to play? And also, what would they have to know, e.g. what would it be unreasonable to hide from them?

Well, everybody, with few exceptions, knows their own past, so the players would have to know the past of their characters, which must therefore include some experience: at the very least, the player's need a character sheet that says something like 'I think I'm pretty smart' or 'I've learned how to fish', etc. So the question is then, how are characters measured by the GM and how does the GM communicate that data to the players? Does the GM tell the players what they are thinking? For example if the player says 'I'm going to climb that tree', does the GM say 'You are confident you can do that', 'It looks a bit tricky', 'Its taller than any tree you've climbed before', 'You've never climbed a tree before in your life', etc. It seems to me that the GM controls an awful lot about the PCs: its more like a game of discovering the character the GM has created for you, though I admit I might have misunderstood the way in which you intend characters to be created.

I think what we really need is a concrete example of a) what stats a character has and b) how those stats are communicated by the GM to the players, not to mention some more about your character creation process. I think i see what you're aiming for, which is that the players find out about & assess what they can do in a manner similar to real life, i.e. they remember how well they did the last time they tried something like this... I think very few of us go around with a little sheet of paper that says things like 'Post on Forums +5', we just use our experience and knowledge of language, typing skills, etc. The thing is, the type of RPG you're suggesting allows for things that mot of us have no real life comparison for, such as fighing monsters and casting spells, not to mention that it is one level removed from actual experience and involves no type of memory other than verbal: their are no other sensory components involved.

Yeah, definitely need to see some concree examples please: its getting pretty hard to assess & comment based on just the concept.

[Certified]

I like the concept of players not knowing their stats and I've even run a few games with this concept. Typically this was a game like Mage: The Ascension where character creation and dice rolls were fairly fast. One thing though and I didn't see this in your main post, so forgive me if I missed it, is the value of the characters background story. What has the character done to get to this point? This gives the player that base line of this is who I am and what I think I can do.

It looks like the game you are working on focuses on younger characters and having them mature over the course of game play. So when creating the player's character would it then be associated with here is where you were born, and the player and GM work to craft a background story that the GM can then use to pull relevant character data from, or possibly having the GM ask, growing up how did you handle this situation? Each answer helping to shape the character.

Also, character advancement, normally players can look at what their strong points are and decide I want to get even better or here are my weak points I better bring those up. With the gift of not knowing the numbers advancement becomes more about what the character has done and what they are doing to improve themselves. Possibly a combination of tracking use of skills and conversations on what the character does during down time.

By setting good expectations I think the players and GM can really focus more on the story and not mechanics of the game. I really like this concept as a core game feature and wish you luck.

[Kynn]

About stats...I want to include them to make combat detailed and unexpectable. For example, instead of having turns in the usual sense, there's a mechanic where each action has a temporal length associated with it, and there are turns, but they do not rotate around the table necessarily.

But if this is hidden from the players, how do they know when to act?  What is the mechanic by which the player knows it is her time to say what she is attempting to do?

I want to see players tripping, pushing, disarming, getting disabled, doing all sorts of things that always happen in real combat but were never tactically smart in D&D.

I'm confused now.  Tripping, bull rushing, disarming, and so on is actually tactically smart in D&D.  (Whether or not player actually take these actions in your games is something different.)

So, I think that in order to make combat varied (by rewarding players who make varying rather than static moves in a dynamic combat environment rather than making the same move over and over), I think I need a more complex system to decide combat.

How would this work?  What rules -- behind the scene -- will determine whether a given maneuver works in combat, and how will you prevent players from simply finding (through experimentation rather than reading the rules) the best thing to do?  I mean, if one guy learns that a flying spin kick always seems to be more effective than a crouching uppercut, he'll probably do the former over and over again -- and thus no "static moves in a dynamic combat environment."

Plus, I think it fits with the concept of Hidden Dice. I want the players, when it's thier turn, to have to act immediately, to be under pressure. I want them to act creatively and intuitively, without regards to the probabilities involved. And in order to do so, they must be free from the knowledge of what the probabilities are.

What are you trying to accomplish?  This sounds to me like you are expecting the players to have detailed knowledge about what is a good maneuver to pull, without having the years of experience that a trained combatant would have.  A battle-proven warrior might not think in percentages, but he certainly would know "what usually works" and how often.  Can you explain what your goal is in implementing such a system?

One thing I also ought to mention. You may be wondering what the character improvement mechanic is, since that I'll bet is an important part of a game's design.

Actually, I wasn't wondering. I actually don't think that's a very important part of game design, to be honest.  Not as important as some of the questions about what you are trying to accomplish and why this would work for you.  I still don't have a clear picture how your game system is run in actual sessions.

Oh, and another feature, which the hidden rules and dice makes possible. I thought a good reward to a player who roleplays well would be knowledge of a single small rule of the game. It gives him insight, and so would be  an attractive reward.

I don't understand that at all. Why should good roleplaying lead to rules knowledge?

[nsruf]

Another fantastic effect of the concept which I will now call the Hidden Dice feature, is the solution to another age old role playing problem, this one very, very general: the detail and excitement which can be afforded by complex rule sets vs. the difficulty of learning a complex system.  Right now, a complex system is renowned for being a bad one: it scares new users away, and someone who's never roleplayed before probably is intimidated. With Hidden Dice, beginners need not learn ANY rules. None. They simply role play, as they should. The players simply role play.

I don't think I agree with you here. First, as others have already pointed out, complexity for its own sake is not a desirable design goal. You have to make up your mind first what you want your game to be/do and then decide on rules that support this. Whether this is simple or complex should be a secondary concern at best.

Second, in my own experience as a GM, having complex rules for any part of the game the players never actually see is a big waste of time. Preparation before the game and things that are handled in the background during the game should be as fast as possible, IMO. Otherwise, the rules will just distract from the important parts, that is GM-player interaction and player-player interaction. Plus, the GM is likely to become frustrated as he puts a lot of effort into things the players just cannot appreciate because they don't know what's going on.

Example: Can a player really tell the difference if you

a) consulted half a dozen tables and made various arcane computations using his PC's base stats to come up with a chance of 58% to disarm a one-eyed orc

b) used his PC's combat stat of 58%

to set his chance to disarm said orc? Well, actually he can: option a) takes a lot more time for you to resolve, time during which all players sit around doing nothing and getting bored.

So my point would be that a detailed combat system can be enjoyable if all players are into that kind of thing, but only if you make the complexity explicit and allow them to use their mastery of the rules to their advantage. The downside is that yes, this tends to distract from "role-playing" in the sense of immersive play/using actor stance for your character. If you want your players to role-play in a specific manner, create rules that support that kind of play, but don't try to hide the rules that don't support it.

BTW, I like the idea of having to discover your characters abilities as part of his growth process. I just don't think it will help you accomplish the goal quoted above,

[Jasper]

Hey guys,

This is Henry's thread, but I would propose that we not bombard him with any more specific questions until he gets a chance to digest some of the classic articles/posts and think about the "standard greeting" questions.

[Henry Danaher]

Hey guys,

This is Henry's thread, but I would propose that we not bombard him with any more specific questions until he gets a chance to digest some of the classic articles/posts and think about the "standard greeting" questions.

I agree; thanks for your comments and time; I need a few days to get some work done in other areas of life and then I will get a long post in. Deal?

Some quick points, though. Some of you have questioned why I need the complex rule system I've spoke of for combat and what it has to do with the hidden nature of the stats---for example, you wonder, if no one sees the stats but the DM, why need the system be complex? True enough. I'd better state very clearly right now, if I haven't before, that this system has multiple goals, two of them being

1. Implementation of hidden statistics.
2. Increased variability, strategic depth, detail, and general uncertainty in combat.

A more minor goal, one that I feel should be put on the sidelines before these main goals are dealt with, is the exposition of a campaign setting with its own properties of culture, magic, cosmology, etc.

As for the two "major project goals" stated above, from now on consider them separately if you will. I believe that they complement each other immensely, but if you disagree on that point fair enough. My argument is that not having direct access to probabilities will introduce a new kind of drama in character actions, and that uncertainty in general makes things more prone to cause fantasy in the mind, to make play more profound and exciting. And the combat system needs to be complex, even out of the sight of the PC's, because I do NOT want decisions to be arbitrary--Arbitrary decisions are always the most mundane, of course.

Like some of you pointed out, this system appears to strive for a focus on story rather than mechanics. Thanks, that is what I want to go for. I'll check out the games you mentioned, such as Mage the Ascension, etc.

And for those of you who are repeating endlessly the question of "if my character doesn't know his stats, how does he know how to act???"  Well do YOU need to know your own 'stats' in order to act in real life? Characters will have a past, a personality. This is sufficient, and what's more, I think it's better, and I'm glad that some people have pointed out they like the idea that characters will start young and 'grow up.' I feel I've already sufficiently responded to the objection that hidden stats make things harder to role play--if anything thier absence removes a crutch that has prevented role playing in many instances for a long time.

Btw, of the comments I've recieved so far, the most useful are the ones who recommended games to look at, stated questions to answer about the game, and gave encouragement. Let me take those ideas to heart, and in a few days reread all that's posted here and then give those who are interested a more definite outline of the system. I know that you want specific mechanics addressed to specific goals. The goals have pretty much been stated; the mechanics will come.

So, give me a few days to take care of other things, and do some reading, and when I have time to type up a good outline of the game, I'll do so gladly.

Meanwhile, feel free to keep adding your thoughts.