[Myrkwell] Need help with first RPG

[Saxon Douglass]

The old argument is that you'll end up with players who don't want their characters to do anything "fun" because it's more rewarding to sit at home picking up heavy rocks. There are rules band-aids you can apply to discourage this, but it begs the question: does this system reward the player behavior you want to encourage?

What do you want the players to do? What tools are you giving them to do it? How do you reward them when they do it?

That is a good point. I was thinking it'd be streamlined to handle character advancement the same way as story advancement but then you get players do one instead of the other, etc. I want the players to complete their goals. I'm not sure what the tools to do that are besides their in-game avatar. The reward is character improvement and story advancement.

Also -- and this is probably where I start talking about specific Creative Agenda -- if you want your game to support Narrativist play, this doesn't work well. You're rewarding players for making their characters do things that have no meaning, not for Addressing Premise.

Sorry but I don't know all the lingo. Are you basically asking "Are the rules rewarding narrativist play?". If that is the question then I guess not because as you brought up it creates the dilemma of story or character advancement. The solution ofcourse is to make characters advance as goals are completed.

My conflict-reward dice-swap mechanism works in a d20+modifier system, too. If in the conflict the player rolls d20+5 and his opponent rolls d20+10, that's great risk. In the resulting reward, the player would roll d20+10 and the opponent would roll d20+5.

You can't do the integrated reward system thing easily with a single die though. When more dice = better, you have the option to then say, "and when you roll a 1 (or a 6 or whatever), that triggers the reward rule."
Yeah i'm starting to like the pool of d6 dice although having just flat points would work still IMO also. If I didn't have dice pools I wouldn't have a d20 or anything - it would be a straight numbers game. The problem is that it isn't random then and having more points automatically means you wins while if A had say 3d6 and B had 5d6 A could still win. I think i'll use dice pools. I don't have the dice yet but i'll see if I can't get some cheep ones at my local hobby store.

I think we're on the same page. The thing to be careful of is that, in writing up extra rules for combat, you don't make it the "fun" part of the game. That's another way designers encourage certain kinds of player behavior.

I remember reading about an early computer game design for an educational game. When the student answered enough questions wrong, the computer would blow up the student's on-screen avatar. Unfortunately, the blowing up was very entertaining, and most students intentionally mis-answered to see the pretty explosions. Winning the game was more work with less payoff in terms of 8-color special effects so students didn't work to win. The designer had unwittingly encouraged them to lose.

Similarly, watch the things you do in your design to ensure you're encouraging and discouraging, as appropriate.

Here's a question: If you make non-violent solutions easier and safer in terms of game mechanics, why would players choose to fight at all? The answer in Dogs is fairly simple. In game mechanics: violence is risky but violence gets me more dice. In Addressing Premise: some things are worth fighting for.

I like Dogs solution. Maybe I don't want to discourage violence, just make it a very risky solution. Either way i'll try to avoid making combat more fun than the other areas of the game although I don't want it to be boring either!

Different games handle the resource problem in different ways. In Verge, you check off boxes when you use a trait for a reroll (win or lose), but not when you use it for the initial dice pool, and you can buy them back with Boosts as you play on, but some refresh in different ways automatically at the end of a Story. In Dogs, you can use each trait in every conflict exactly one time; that is, you check them off (mentally) but they "refresh" at the end of the conflict, win or lose. In My Life with Master, simple formulae indicate which traits are used for different types of conflicts and traits increase and decrease based on success or failure, and the freeform traits ("More Than Human" and "Less Than Human") subvert the dice altogether!

I think making them be burnt when brought into the conflict win or lose is the way to go for this. At the end of the session they would refresh or if everyone runs out they would refresh then too. The problem then is things don't have a meaningful impact if you lose. The problem i'm having is their are two ways to bring something in - one where you burn either way and one you only burn if you lose. Both make sense for most aspects. To take an example we'll use a friendship. The player puts a friendship at risk and gets bonus dice. In the first system they lose the friend either way - they burn that resource to hopefully win the conflict. In the latter system though they might not ruin their friendship, especially if they put more on the line. The problem with the second is that they can put everythinjg on the line and if they have more to put down than the opponent then they always win. The problem with the first is that they can't "refresh". I thought I had this all worked out before but now i'm starting to lose it.

It's hard to let go. I struggle with it myself. Why do you not want them to change the established setting "too much"? And you mean the players, right? not the GM? Why? I look at my own reasons and cannot use them as justification for limiting players any more than I limit myself as GM.

Group consensus will prevent the worst abuses, like introducing funky sci-fi elements into a fantasy world. But if the players want to do this, why not let them? (Recall that the D&D 1st Ed. DMG had rules for cross-over SF campaigns.)

Should you make it a reward thing? That is, when you do well, you get more power to influence the setting? My answer is: be careful because maybe you want players to have more power to do this than you're giving them. Do not toss setting improvement into the same lot as character improvement and make the players choose one or the other on which to spend their points. They'll ignore one for the other.

You probably do want to limit setting contributions somehow, or else the game might get unfocused. You can give each player a pool of points that refreshes automatically every game session and let them spend them on setting contributions. You should consider rewarding players for making setting elements meaningful through play. That is, introducing a setting element doesn't get you an award but connecting your character to it in a meaningful way does.

That really works for me. Having a few points every session to change the world sounds like a good way to handle it. I also like that you only get rewarding for actually tying your character to the change. So a point might bring in Bob the Cobbler although you get no extra benefit besides that. Bob will have a for goals himself and helping him acheive HIS goals gets you rewarded. But then I can't justify why helping Bob would be fun or anything so that is starting to sound stupid :| I'm atarting to think I am over my head.

Things get interesting when group goals collide (and conflict) with personal goals. That's big fun there. The trick is to write your rules to allow both group goals and personal goals and ensure that they do not directly conflict but might indirectly conflict.

Why wouldn't open group goals work? For example, a group might have the goal, "Protect the Kingdom of Alfinia." That's pretty open. They can always have additional short-term goals, like "Defeat the Dragon Queen." In either case, the group earns a reward whenever its actions (as a group) advance that goal. Advance, not complete. Completing a goal might gain an additional reward, too, but advancing goals can be rewarded.

How do you define "group" for goals? If 4 out of 5 of the group work advances a goal while the fifth member works against that goal, does the group earn its reward? I'd say yes, if the advancement was successful. Let the group police itself.

You don't need group goals to "climax." It's probably useful for the type of game you want to run, but it's not strictly necessary. Verge supports a group story with personal goals that are all at odds with one another. The personal stories can conclude satisfactorily without the group goal being resolved.

Yeah, all true. I'll see if the system works in playtesting although the goals are one of the only things i'm still sorta sure about.

In full disclosure, I am working on a fantasy game, too. I've been sharing lots of my favorite ideas with you, so don't be surprised when they show up in my game too. =)

Yeah i'll try and make my game different from others although it's hard because there are so many RPGs out there. I'll worry about acheiving my goals more than being different from others work though because every idea has been used atleast once out there.

I think I need to re-visit my goals. Here are my main objectives with the game:

- Risk scales with reward, you can't get something for nothing.
- The GM and player work together on what happens in the world.
- Players need to take sides and choices have consequences.
- Encounters and conflict to be exciting/action-y like combat is in D&D.
- Reward goal advancement with both character and story advancement.

Those are the main things I want the system to address. My reasoning behind setting stuff being bought with advancement points (Also used for character improvement) is that I thought the system could work the same. Being good at swinging a sword or being a suave talker would be just as usefull as being good friends with the local innkeeper or being a minor landed gentry. They would all provide bonus dice during a conflict when you risked them or burnt them. The problem with that though is you might have characters who are amazingly un-remarkeable with a bunch of other things. If I seperated setting creation into two parts it might work though (don't I have to make everything tow parts!?) - that which the whole group ones and helps no-one particularly and that which helps a player. Stuff which just changes the world is free and can be done by anyone if the group agrees. The other sort would be purchased with points and would give the player a resource they could spend to get extra dice with.

Here are two example characters, both with 10d6 worth of resources. The first's resources are related to the character while the second is more world-related.

Beppo - 1d6 Legendary Sword, 2d6 Intimidate, 3d6 Swordsmanship, 4d6 Honor

Fargus - 1d6 Family History, 2d6 Fellow of the Shire, 3d6 Friendship with Beppo, 4d6 Minor Landed Gentry

As you can see both would be equally powerful during a conflict, just in very different ways. Would that work or should character advancment and world/story advancement be seperate. Ofcourse you can say that Fargus still has character advcanement but he has bought things that are quite different from the norm. What he bought changed the world though - to be a landed gentry all he had to do was spend the points.

[Adam Dray]

Some obvious tools for achieving goals: character traits, those special traits you only get when you risk something, "fate" points or the like.

You asked: "As you can see both would be equally powerful during a conflict, just in very different ways. Would that work or should character advancment and world/story advancement be seperate."

It'll work fine. The player decides what is important to him when he creates the character and when he chooses the traits for a conflict.


As an aside, here's a Dogs character I created at a con. I wanted you to see what you can do with free form traits.

Socrates Smith
Background: Strong History

Stats: Acuity 1d6, Body 5d6, Heart 4d6, Will 3d6

Traits:
I never seen a problem that couldn't be fixed with some hittin' 3d10
People just ought to be nice ta each other 3d8
Big + strong 3d6
I ain't much with words, but I know this... 1d10
My feelings are easily hurt 1d4
Patient 1d6

Relationships: Blood 1d6, Momma 3d6, The Dogs 2d8

Belongings: Coat 2d6, Portrait of Momma 1d6, Big and excellent boots 2d8, Disused six-gun 2d4