[Chanter] Rules for the things that matter

[Jack Aidley]

Lately I've returned to Chanter and been working on turning it into a complete and finished game. To be honest, when I first wrote the game I didn't really think overly much about it and, to my mind, it's badly incomplete when it comes to the thing it's supposed to be about. Addressing that has been my first concern.

One of the concept behind Chanter is that the players primarily involve themselves in the politics and society of Chanterdom over very long periods of time, yet the rules I designed leave all this up to pure GM fiat - I consider that to be an unacceptable way of working. I want, therefore, a rules system (preferably a generalised one) that allows the players to interact with the larger picture in a defined and predictable way. Ideally the system should also serve as a mechanism for players to explicitly state what they are interested in playing.

With these aims in mind I've come up with the following concept, it's rough around the edges and low on detail at the moment but I think there's enough there for you to get the idea and, hopefully, discuss it productively. What I'm looking for from are criticisms of the system and how it can be expected to work in actual play, potential flaws, suggested improvements and, since nothing is as innovative as you think it is, examples of other systems that achieve the same aims that I could look at.

It works like this: players can (will?) have one or more Goals. A Goal is a statement of something you want to achieve, such as "Be promoted to Ursat", "Woo Lady iVila and persuade her family to allow our marriage", "expand my holdings", "defect to the Dun Low faction" or "attract a suitable and political valueable husband for my daughter". Possibly some low level of character improvement will also be possible through this system to accompany the usual long-term pattern of rise and fall. In keeping with Chanter's general philosophy of a strong GM, Goals would be subject to GM approval and negotiation. Each Goal would be assigned a Value, this being a number of points that must be accumulated to achieve the goal, some of these points can be garnered by using character resources (wealth, influence, reputation, favour's owed, family position, etc.) - usually a resource wouldn't be consumed by this use, but in some cases (such as the giving of gifts) it could be. More significantly, at least some of the points needed must come from Steps.

Steps are targets that the character needs to achieve, such as "defeat Agura in single combat", "make contact with a Dun Low operative without anyone finding out", "forge trade links with the barbarians" or "impress iVila with fine poetry". Steps need to be clearly defined so that is clear when they have been achieved, they must also have a chance of failure and be logically connected to the goal they are to be used towards - again the final say over these requirements lies with the GM. The player can change the Steps at any time, but must declare them before beginning them. I'm inclined to set a limit of one step being resolved per session, or something along those lines to keep the achievement of goals slow (in keeping with the intended time scale of Chanter). It is also preferable that players share the Steps when suitable so that their characters work together. It is expected that failing to achieve a step would be a relatively common occurrence in Chanter play, but that failing to achieve a Goal would be rare.

Goals then define the effect of carrying out a set of actions, while Steps define what those actions are and allow players to state what they want to do.

Thoughts?

[Darcy Burgess]

Hi Jack

I really like the idea.  Now, what's striking is that you used a lot of words to essentially formalize "open-ended scenario design".

Which is fine, especially since the Goals/Steps system is in its early days.  What I'd like to see is start using those words more to explain how players and GMs create Steps and Goals, give pointers on assigning Value, mechanical feedback loops (currency of the game in action), etc.

As for other systems, if you can dig it up, Underground has a "how what you do changes the world" mechanic.  IMHO, it's about the only thing worth reading in the game, but that mechanic is excellent.  You may be able to mine it for some interesting fodder.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Darcy,

Now, what's striking is that you used a lot of words to essentially formalize "open-ended scenario design".

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "open-ended scenario design", but I think the method does both more and less than that. Strictly neither Goals, nor Steps actually define what happens at design they act instead to guide what happens and convert what happens into a focused and player-specified reward. That seems to me to be an inexact fit with the position scenario design usually fits.

What I'd like to see is start using those words more to explain how players and GMs create Steps and Goals, give pointers on assigning Value, mechanical feedback loops (currency of the game in action), etc.

I imagine it working like this: at the start of the campaign (and I use that term because Chanter is, without doubt, intended as a game played in campaigns rather than as a one-off or few session affair) will come a creation phase, in which the players and the GM will collaboratively define at least a decent body of the houses and factions of Chanterdom (and their relations to one another) and define the locale in which the players starting holdings lie. Hopefully this should provide enough grist for the mill for the players to establish some starting goals for their characters.

One Goals have been agreed upon, the player will doubtless try and claim some resources to help with their goals (for example, if the Goal is "join House Bivendi", and house Bivendi holds Valour in high esteem a reputation for Valour could be claimed), however at the start of the campaign players will have few resources to draw upon so they'll need to think about Steps they could take to acheive their goal. Again this should be worked out through discussion with the other players and the GM so that the steps can align among the players. I'd expect players to outline more steps than they actually need to fill the goal to give flexibility to the process.

I'm largely undecided on the value that goals take. One possibility is to have all Goals have fixed values, the other is to have a framework for deciding Goal values - which should be easy enough for the more common kinds of goals (rising in the ranks, arranging a marriage, playing politics with the Houses, etc.) but is likely to be very fiaty when more obscure or abstract goals are desired. It would also be possible to control Goal "difficulty" by varying the strictness of resource allocation and the points gained by them, but I think only one of the Value and the points gained should vary.

After the first blush of play, I'd hope that enough has happened in play for player's to begin forming definite goals for the characters. One thing I feel the game does need is strong support for the players to follow divergent and/or opposing goals, I'm intending to use Ars Magica style troupe play to help deal with this front.

In terms of mechanical feedback loops, I've not clearly settled on any firm ideas.

As for other systems, if you can dig it up, Underground has a "how what you do changes the world" mechanic.  IMHO, it's about the only thing worth reading in the game, but that mechanic is excellent.  You may be able to mine it for some interesting fodder.

I don't really want to purchase it for a single subsystem, could you give me the cliff notes on how it works?

[Darcy Burgess]

Hi Jack

Apologies for my earlier post.  Bad form on my part.  What I really meant to say with my "open-ended" quip (which I'll be the first to admit was me, Darcy, trying to be witty.  Stupid.) was this:

"Good Core Idea.  Now, tell me how it works (mechanically) with examples or guidelines."

Whether you got that or not, is now irrelevant -- because that's exactly what you did.  Cool.

I think that what you just outlined is sound.  I'd suggest a pool of Goal points that could be dipped into by the group.  Some let the players define their goals and their values.

So, what's to stop them all from defining goals at a minimum?  The "unused" portion of the pool becomes currency for the GM to use however sHe sees fit.

And I think the concept of using Goods to achieve Goals is weak.  By this I mean, if it's just something I have on my character sheet, who cares?  If you want to include that in the mix, then let that be a justification for the Player setting a low Goal threshold -- which won't matter, because that will put currency in the GM's hands to make achieving the other Steps that much more difficult.

On the other hand, if the Good is just a physical embodiment of in-play conflict (ie: kidnap the Baron's niece), that's a completely different kettle of fish, and all is cool.  Use that to fulfill Steps, by all means.

Regarding Underground -- I'll have to dig around and see if I can find it (I inherited it from an old buddy), and if I can, by all means I'll give you the point form.  I just remember thinking "cool -- this is good shit" when I read it.

[Bankuei]

Hi Jack,

I really like the idea of goals- it gives concrete examples to work with for play.  The questions I have are:

Are you tying mechanical resolution into each Step?  Since you're only supposed to resolve one per session, I could easily see it being done as a conflict resolution carried over the course of an entire session.  Producing some kind of "endgame" mechanics for each session could make that rather interesting.

Do you expect the group to base their Goals, Steps, or design characters around a common (yet also customizable) theme, or subject?  For example- BW & Riddle of Steel both work exceptionally well when the group picks Beliefs or SAs around similar subjects or a concrete situation ("Honor", "The King is dead." etc.), but you don't get a lot of structural steps for that- are you planning to do something like that?  Or even do it Trollbabe style, where play might consist of 3 completely seperate narratives with no linkages?

Chris

[Bill Masek]

Jack,

It seems to me that you've answered your own question.  This game is supposed to be about resource accumulation.  Its about setting out a Goal which will ultimately provide a resource.  However, that Goal will require resources the player lacks.  So the player trades/barters/steals resources in order to acquire the resources to achieve the Goal and thus gain additional resources.  The character is then assigned a new Goal with a higher resource requirement and a greater resource pay off.  Play continues like this throughout the life of the campaign.

The Steps are a nice touch to, allowing the players to feel a sense of accomplishment each session while extending the amount of time it takes to accomplish a goal.  Also, spreading the resource requirements throughout the Steps makes the Goal feel less like a shopping list and more like a great adventure.

Best,
       Bill

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Darcy,

And I think the concept of using Goods to achieve Goals is weak.  By this I mean, if it's just something I have on my character sheet, who cares?

Bill nails the reasoning behind it in his post, the intention behind the system is to provide a mechanical feedback system whereby the character's resources effect their ability to solve new problems. A player who spends time building up their characters wealth and influence can later use that wealth and influence to affect the things that matter to them. Another part of this relates to the possibility of characters acquiring reputations through play, and those reputations having a mechanical influence on how easy it is for them to acheive certain goals later on, I'd give a clearer example of this but I've not got how a reputation system will work clear in my head yet.

Hi Chris,

Are you tying mechanical resolution into each Step?  Since you're only supposed to resolve one per session, I could easily see it being done as a conflict resolution carried over the course of an entire session.  Producing some kind of "endgame" mechanics for each session could make that rather interesting.

Interesting idea but, no, I don't think so. I want Chanter to maintain its largely conventional structure, but provide a means for the events established through play to effect larger fields of play in a defined manner. The limit to resolving one step a session is intended to maintain a slow pacing, but I'm unsure whether it will be needed.

Do you expect the group to base their Goals, Steps, or design characters around a common (yet also customizable) theme, or subject?

Certainly to start with, although with the potential for that closeness to spread as the game continues. In my estimation, political oposition among the characters should provide for interesting play and player conflict but if it is to be engaging it will also need time to emerge, as I see it changes from aligned goals to disperate goals and opposing goals as the game progresses should provide both variety and interest. I would also expect play to start with relatively small and localised goals and expand to grander themes as play progresses and more of the world and it's politics is defined through play and the characters grow in power and influence.

Thanks for your input, guys.