Creating a new Tabletop RPG...

[mutex]

Shapeshifters, excellent.  But they still have races that define certain physiological/social/cultural traits.  So, I would guess it's partially defined, partially up to the player.

What I'm curious about is how fast a shape is shifted.  Is it evolutionary or spontaneous?  Are you dealing with doppelgangers or werewolves, or both?

Also, I'm very interested in how humans react to the shapeshifters.  You mention that you'd have to find rules balance to keep humans at an equal effectiveness, so do you imply that shapeshifters are more powerful than humans?

Sorry if I'm talking bollocks, but I want to encourage you.

[EllePepper]

Well, Ok, firstly, it is non-evolutionary.  The premise is that MISTICs were created by a company who were trying to engineer soldiers.  They got some interesting results and in the end decided to liquidate the entire project.  They started with a town that the mistics had set up as a safe-haven.  A place called Seaview (This is the location where the game starts) 

Each Race has particular traits, stats and triggers that are locked (Static) everything else is user defined.  How ever, each trait that you give must affect at least one other trait.  Or must add a Trigger to their humanity table.  Most shifters are dual natured.  (For instance, werewolf.)   A werewolf (Lycan) has a human side and a wolf side.  When 'shifted' they gain all the pluses of their other side, but they can only stay shifted as long as their defense and humanity last.  The longer they stay shifted, the more chance of problems (Lycan, for instance, in wolf form have a much shorter temper, so a lycan who starts out 'hostile' when stuck in a 'humanity shift' will immediately become 'super hostile' or 'enraged' they will attack whatever THEY percieve as a threat.  That could be a team member or an object, or anything.  (user defined triggers)  A low humanity score also affects them in this way, anything that must be thought through logically is hard for them.  They act on instinct not on rationality. 

Sub-mistics can be dopplegangers, they can have up to two Static abilites (Depending on what racial traits they have) and up to three user defined abilities.  (Which means that yes, you can be half Vampire half werewolf, as long as you define your static traits for each and what happens with your humanity gague.)

Mortals may be for or agianst you.  They can be aligned with the company (Mystic) or with a particular race (lycan) or with a particular side (Mistic)  This affects their diplomacy rating with others.  The more hostile a character (mortal or not) the lower this rating is.  That's all well and good, but if you need a free pass across Lycan territory and you killed their last messenger...they will think twice about letting you in.  "Diplomacy is all RP.  You must Convince the person challenging (Maybe played by the DM maybe (with permission) played by another member.  But the lower your diplomacy rating, the less willing the person is to listen to you.  (At a one or a two, they may attack without even letting you open your mouth.)

[EllePepper]

Grr, should be GM,

Sciences (Flying, telepathy and other interesting effects) are able to be learned by almost everyone.  Particular races are precluded from some, however. (Since they would have no effect, they are precluded.)  Sciences may be discovered by accident, or intentionally learned. 

For instance:

(Keeper)  ok Ev(Lycan), you went Feral, you still have three attackers and cannot unshift.

(Evan)  Ok, three to one, (Rolls humanity) Can't shift.  Out of desperation I use Science Of Banshee,(Previously undiscovered) and shift to a Second form and attack the three hunters.  Because I shift in desperation to a larger form, I have most of my normal attack  (Rolls as if he were uninjured and applies normal penalty.)

(Keeper) (Notes the new discovery and rolls for attribute success.) Ok, you manage to kill one, maim another, and fall to the floor unconcious, (Rolls a D6) It will be two turns before you awaken.  You take another negative to your humanity if you use this science, and must add one trigger.  But you gain one Knowledge point, and one unskilled science.

(When he actually 'learns' it later at one of the libraries or archives he can fill in the rest of the why's and wherefores.  Such as, "can only be used when all other rolls have failed, or to use must fail humanity roll twice.  However, the person discovering it cannot change associated penalties.

If they are not convincing in the RP though, the ability is not taken away, they simply fail in activating it.  (Before they learn it they must successfully Activate it in RP.)

[EllePepper]

Clear as mud?  I know, probably bad example, but that was what I came up with on the fly.  You can give yourself any attribute as long as you can properly explain why you didn't have it before.  (out of desperation, or because of the silver in the air)  (However, it is something that once discovered anyone can learn, assuming they follow the rules.) a 'science' may only be learned on the fly by one person.  After that, all others who want to learn it must go to the archive or library.  The same rule holds for weapons, you may 'pick up and use' a weapon (say, a sonic rifle) if you come across it, but in order to be good at it, or to be able to modify it (Add any bonuses or use accuracy,) you must go to the archive and study 'proper use and handling of Sonic Rifles.' 

[Callan S.]

Hey Laura,

Are we going to see that mock up of play posted?

[Selene Tan]

Laura, at this point you might benefit from reading Troy's Standard Rant #2 and thinking about the "big three" questions:

• What is your game about?
• What do the characters do?
• What do the people at the table do?

But really, read Troy's post first before answering, because it has a good explanation of what I mean by asking those questions.

Basically, it looks like you've already put a lot of thought into setting and mechanics. But do they really accomplish what you want for this game? None of us can really help you until we know what you actually want. It does look like you've thought about that, too, since you've stated that a GM-less game won't have the effect you want. I'm just asking for a little more detail.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Elle, those last few posts made things much clearer for me; thanks. Let me (like Selene - crossposting goodness!) put my own spin on some of those Standard Forge Questions (tm)*:

1) What do the characters do in this game?
From your example, they clearly get in fights and develop new superhuman abilities, and also do research. Is there anything else (e.g. politics, romance, wrestling with long bouts of depression)? And what do you expect them to spend most of their time doing?
(N.B.: We're all indoctrinated that only right answer to "what do the characters do?" is "anything you can imagine!" Which isn't an answer at all, because you gotta have focus; a game meant to be like Star Wars should have a very different answer than a game meant to be like L.A. Confidential or Toy Story).
Some people like to answer this in terms of a "core story" (or sometimes "franchise"): the thing that anyone playing a session can expect. For Dungeons & Dragons, the core story is basically "a bunch of heroes go into a scary place (dungeon, wilderness, whatever), kill a bunch of monsters and take their stuff, and therefore become more powerful"; for Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard, it's "vigilante exorcists ride into an isolated frontier town, discover its secret sin, and try to balance justice with mercy as they make things right."

2) What do the players do in this game? What does the GM do, if there is one?
What do the real people sitting around the table do? Again, to use D&D and Dogs as examples:
- D&D: "players listen to the situation the GM presents, choose tactics, describe what their characters do, and roll dice, then follow the GM's clues to the next scene; the GM controls all the enemies and all the neutrals, tries to make the fights hard enough to be challenging but not so hard as to be impossible, and guides the players through a more-or-less predetermined plot"
- Dogs: "players investigate the town and townsfolk the GM invents, fight for what's right or back off if they have to, dispense judgment or mercy; the GM plays the townsfolk to (a) show the players' what's wrong and (b) make it hard for them to have an easy fix, without every having a "right" solution in mind"

3) Why is this fun?
More commonly put as "what's your game about?" But the "about" that really matter is not the world you've made up or the character types people can play, but the thing -- whatever it is -- that makes you excited about playing the game: tactical challenge? Wish fulfillment? Exploring a cool world? Telling stories about brutal moral dilemmas?

* Some good compilations of questions include The Power 19 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17286.0) and Troy's Standard Rant #2, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16996.0) which includes some leading designers' answers to a version of the "big three" questions above.

[EllePepper]

As much of all of the others as they wish to do.  They interact just like everyone else.  If they wish to have a love affair with a game character, so much the better, more fodder for the game. 

If they run into a moral issue they have to choose, what do they do.  No dice rolls, no fancy math, just what do you do?  Do you kill this guy to save your friend even though you are forbidden from killing perhaps?  Or do you just consider it a lost cause?  That is up to the character.

As for what to expect, when you boil it all down I guess the aim (depending on if you are playing the Mistic or Mystic line, is to either free the city (mistic) or Kill everyone who isn't like you, (the company Mystic.)  Depending on which view is yours, you aim to complete one of those two goals.  How you complete them is up to you.


The characters explain the world through story as they see it through the eyes of their character, develop tactics for war, roll some dice, The GM plays some townfolk or some NPC's in order to challenge the players, keep the game fresh, and keep the storyline moving toward the eventual end.  He is not the only arbitor, and there is no static script.  But the overarching goal, if you are playing as a mistic is to free your people and rebuild the town, if you are playing one of the doctors or their minions it is to destroy any mistic or anyone who knows of them.

As to what the game is about, I would say that it is life, love and loyalty in a war zone.  Who do you trust and why?  How far do you trust them?  What could make that change?  Who are you willing to risk yourself for?  How much are you willing to risk.  If you are a pacifist, what will make you take up arms, if you are a warrior what will make you throw them down?  And how do you see the city?

as to the about question, I would have to say moral dilemmas.  In essence throughout the game the characters must decide who lives and who dies, and what drives them in those choices is what makes the game interesting, the dynamics of the characters.  (Of course then, I could be the odd duck who likes things like that..)  But I would also have to say, the vicarious thrill of being not just able but allowed to do all the things that people tell us we cannot, should not or would not do, just to see what would happen.

[Selene Tan]

As to what the game is about, I would say that it is life, love and loyalty in a war zone.  Who do you trust and why?  How far do you trust them?  What could make that change?  Who are you willing to risk yourself for?  How much are you willing to risk.  If you are a pacifist, what will make you take up arms, if you are a warrior what will make you throw them down?  And how do you see the city?

This is great stuff! I would totally play a game like that. You need to keep this in mind as you're designing the rest of the game, because it's really easy to get caught up in fiddling with mechanics and forget why you're doing it.
The topic of your game suggests to me that you should spend a lot of time considering the mechanics that govern relationships in your game. Which is not to say that you must have really complicated relationship rules, just that you should think carefully about how your relationship rules encourage or discourage people from asking those questions. Ideally, your mechanics will make it impossible for players to get away without facing any of those questions. (The Mountain Witch has a neat, simple Trust mechanic that does its job really well. You can read the alpha version for free.)

as to the about question, I would have to say moral dilemmas.  In essence throughout the game the characters must decide who lives and who dies, and what drives them in those choices is what makes the game interesting, the dynamics of the characters.  (Of course then, I could be the odd duck who likes things like that..)  But I would also have to say, the vicarious thrill of being not just able but allowed to do all the things that people tell us we cannot, should not or would not do, just to see what would happen.

That's not an odd thing to be interested in at all, and it's the focus of a lot of the games being developed at the Forge. You might want to take a look at Dogs in the Vineyard, where your characters are responsible for passing judgement on sinners. Don't be put off by the presence of "some weird religion" (i.e. the Faith); it's there to provide a framework for presenting the players with tough choices, and you don't necessarily need to agree with it.

[EllePepper]

An interesting system, kind of what I am doing with the diplomacy but different.  Diplomacy affects the whole group, But each individual has a rating, though I guess you could say it affects the group dynamic as a whole since it will tell you how much mistrust you will gain from certain races.  So if your diplomacy with the lycan is low, even the lycan on the team might not trust you. 

[Sydney Freedberg]

What if the Lycan on the team is a player character? Is that player then required to roleplay the lack of trust, with someone (e.g. the GM) saying, "no, you can't do that, you're showing too much trust in this other character"? (That's basically the way D&D does Alignments, e.g. Lawful Good vs Chaotic Evil). Or, as in The Mountain Witch, is there some mechanical bonus/penalty to reflect relationships of trust/mistrust -- say, the players can make whatever choice they like, but if your character is mistrusted by Lycans, the Lycan PC gets a bonus to any action that shows his/her mistrust of you (e.g. stabbing you in the back, not letting you be the one to guard the Mystic Whatever) and a penalty to any action that requires trust (e.g. "okay, sure Lycan Guy lets you treat his wounds, but he gets a -5 to his recovery roll because you touching him stresses him out")? These are two very different approaches, the former being more flexible at the expense of giving near-dictatorial power to the GM to say what's "good roleplaying" or not, the latter being more concrete and objective, which may feel restrictive.

the aim (depending on if you are playing the Mistic or Mystic line, is to either free the city (mistic) or Kill everyone who isn't like you, (the company Mystic.)  Depending on which view is yours, you aim to complete one of those two goals.  How you complete them is up to you.

This is cool. This gives you a lot of focus: Here's the city, here're the sides, here's what's a stake -- live free or die! The choice is yours. (Or maybe somebody else dies -- was that worth your freedom? Really? Well, next session let's see if you're willing to endanger someone more sympathetic, like a kid...).

Suggestion: If the company Mystics have a purely negative and destructive goal, if they're just the bad guys, it's not going to be that interesting to roleplay one. (Not after the first few sessions of "ha! Look how evil I am!" wears off). I'd suggest either you make the company Mystics only non-player characters, so you can concentrate on making them really villainous villains everyone loves to hate, or you keep them as potential player characters but give them more depth, make them more sympathetic. Maybe the Company Mystics sincerely believe shapechangers like themselves are too dangerous to be trusted with freedom, and that only be strict submission to the Company that created them can they remain good? Then both sides have real dilemmas and choices.

[EllePepper]

Perhaps I over-generalized them.  The uper echelon are evil to the core, they just want to destroy everyone, but I make no requirements as to why the person is still following them.  perhaps fear, perhaps Mystic is holding something over them.  (And who says those who work for Mystic can't change?)  Some of them will be npc's but if they want to play mystic, it is up to them to formulate a history of why they are still with them.  What end do they hope to achieve?  Do they see the mistics as fanatics, perhaps they had run-ins with mistics. 

Well, I guess I could say that the theory behind Mystic involvement is that they want to destory and as a whole that is true, but I never tell you why Each Character signed on to mystic, do they stay to perhaps do some good from within?  But as far as the mistics are concerned they are bad one and all. 

As to the penalty for mistrust, I think I would again use the diplomacy rating, and have that affect the in-team diplomatics as well,  While I don't think it would directly correlate to a penalty, it would also depend on what the lycan's trigger's were.  I mean if he doesn't like hunters and happens to have a trigger on a hunter item (Say the black crecent)  then he would have to continually fight not to attack that particular team member.  I don't know if an artificial means like a penalty would work or not, I'd have to test it both ways.

[Mikael]

Hello Laura

Surprisingly, I think no-one has asked you this yet, so here goes:

What is your publishing goal with this game? I suppose you are not just planning to play with some friends, if you are prepared to go to all the trouble of creating a separate game, instead of just taking and adapting an existing one. If so, are you headed for a PDF or something more solid?

Cheers,
+ Mikael

[daMoose_Neo]

Generally, talking publishing at this point is putting the horse before the applecart.
System is Important Step #1. Once thats laid down, the rest can follow.

[daMoose_Neo]

errr...Applecart before the horse. Curse the lack of caffine in my veins! *rushes off to guzzle some java*