My game: Shattered Norns

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

I used to do a little bit of game design work.  I'm afraid I enjoy watching games almost as much as playing them, sometimes more.

I slowed down a bit in 1985 and then dropped out completely in 1993.

Much to my surprise, I've actually started to find myself interested in game design a bit.

My game is at http://adrr.com/hero/norns/index.htm

It suffers from the problem that there is design drift across the game and it is a translation of a game to RQ, replacing the similar system I used (a 3d6/2d10/1d20 system).

It also lacks a starting core scenario group, something that I'm convinced by talking with Paul Stormber is essential.

A core scenario group is a starting scenario set that exists to

• Demonstrate how the characters do what they do.  To many games have a concept about what the characters do, but lack a good concept about how they do what they do -- where the play is.
• Provide a core game experience that everyone who plays the game can share to give them some common context.  This is a very valuable experience and seems to be one that is very much missed.
• Guides both players and game masters in understanding how to run a campaign in the setting.

Samples of those types of sets are:
http://adrr.com/hero/scenarios/02.htm
http://adrr.com/hero/norns/15.htm

Though those are not for Shattered Norns.

Anyway, I got started when my oldest daughter expressed an interest in stories.  I started telling her stories (in a joingly contributory way) and they got complex enough that I realized I needed to keep notes to avoid getting lost.

So I started http://adrr.com/story/index.htm and shortly thereafter was contacted by someone interested in doing Starstrands.  When LW threw things out and burned a lot of them, he ended up with the original Starstrands draft, so I started doing some things.  He's gone (who knows where), but the project kind of moved on for a while, leaving this as a result:  http://adrr.com/story/sketch.htm#Project

I also got Mistworld (a proof of concept rough draft, from the days before spell checkers) reduced to a pdf -- people are welcome to a copy if they e-mail it to me.  It was for Basic Role Playing but the pending delux version did not come about (this was the 80s) and my co-writer decided not to do the scenarios (I did my part, he was going to do a scenario set -- though with the collapse of the BRP line at the time, he didn't have a reason to do his part).

Anyway, I'm thinking of reverting to my game, the way it was before the side trip or maybe updated to fit as rules for the stories I'm doing now.

I'm interested in feedback and comments.  I may not end up going forward, I might.

Regards,


Steve Marsh (often on-line as Stephen M (Ethesis) ).

http://adrr.com/story/project.htm my project outline.

http://adrr.com/story/simple.htm for my simple rules (yes, there is a flaw, yes, it nees a rewrite).

[Calithena]

It also lacks a starting core scenario group, something that I'm convinced by talking with Paul Stormber is essential.

Hi, Steve, welcome to the Forge!

Your quotation above suggests the standard Forge question for designers who post here: what's your game about? The 'core scenario group' in question is approximately the same question, really: what do characters do in Shattered Norns?

I think telling us what you see the game as being about will help bring better advice. I know you're an old-time master of Heroquesting, so maybe there's something to be found there, but this is always the first question to ask about a game: what kind of experience are you trying to provide the players? And since yours is a game with characters, we can follow up with: what do the characters do? And how does that tie into the answer to the first question?

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

It also lacks a starting core scenario group, something that I'm convinced by talking with Paul Stormber is essential.

Hi, Steve, welcome to the Forge!

Your quotation above suggests the standard Forge question for designers who post here: what's your game about? The 'core scenario group' in question is approximately the same question, really: what do characters do in Shattered Norns?

I think telling us what you see the game as being about will help bring better advice. I know you're an old-time master of Heroquesting, so maybe there's something to be found there, but this is always the first question to ask about a game: what kind of experience are you trying to provide the players? And since yours is a game with characters, we can follow up with: what do the characters do? And how does that tie into the answer to the first question?

Well, I was drifting towards designing for computer FRPG settings, and that was an easy sort of question to answer.  The characters found themselves crossing over into the hidden fantasy side of life in a branching campaign that followed the stories I had done ;)

Seriously, I'm not sure if I want to do something more like the first or the second scenario set I liked to in the initial post. 

In the RQ "regular folks" campaign, the characters learn about life in the heroic age, and learn about the world and their place in it, as a foundation for transcending that place and becoming founders.  If you are thinking the core hoped for RQ experience migrating to a Heroquest experience, you've got it.  The only difference was that I wanted to set that experience in Shattered Norns.

In the other example, the characters find themselves thrust into a position where they can make a difference, at a time and place where a difference is needed -- almost a fantasy superhero type dynamic.  Set in our world, the elvish realms "next door" and the near worlds of dream, with Shattered Norns one of the places nearby and a setting for some excursions (along with Starstrands and various dream worlds).

Those are vastly different experiences and play types.  I think an FRPG on a computer is beyond my current scope, though see http://www.styrofoampeanut.net/privateer/ -- that is a project by some guys to change one of my concepts from an outline to a real game (using the Privateer Remake http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=24 as the engine).

However, I'm thinking of redoing my 3d6/2d10/d20 system and using it to provide a game framework for one of the worlds I've done.  The world choice will drive what the characters do and how the players play.  I'm still thinking.  Not to long ago I'd have told you I'd never be back.

Now, I look at the new RQIV/Mongoose and at Delux Basic Role Playing and thnk, hey, I can update it all for one of those or I can go back to the simpler dice systems and do something.

The simple dice system allows for cautious (3d6) workmanlike (2d10) and berzerk (1d20) styles of play to flow from dice choices and for a system that makes it easy to design for (ah, in my heart of hearts I'm interested more in scenario design than ... I'm unmasked.  To me a good game is one that implies and aids the design of good scenarios).

Steve Marsh

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

Game Name:  Shattered Norns

Genre:  Fantasy

Published: (yes, no): On line, proof of concept drafts done, currently in rough.

Years in development or since published:  Begun 1967, print drafts 1983, 1992, on-line recently.

Pages:  A megabyte or so.

Dice used:  3d6/2d10/d20

website: http://adrr.com/hero/norns/index.htm and http://adrr.com/story/

art link: http://adrr.com/story/  (I'd like some feedback on my artwork, btw, since I've been doing it all myself, with a few exceptions, such as the main favicon).

story link:  http://adrr.com/wing/10.htm -- that is kind of what derailed me, though it got worse before it got better.  cf http://adrr.com/living/

setting link: http://adrr.com/story/#Settings

Brief game overview: see above.

Posting purpose: (what is your need) ex. beta testers, artists, writers etc.):  working things out in my head to decide if I want to go forward or drop back out.  I'd have gladly stayed for theory discussions, but I understand why the plug was pulled on those.

[Calithena]

(ah, in my heart of hearts I'm interested more in scenario design than ... I'm unmasked.  To me a good game is one that implies and aids the design of good scenarios)

I know the feeling...I'm the same way, more or less. But still, the key is in here. If you like to design scenarios...what kind of scenarios are they? I know that the old-school answer is 'all kinds', but with a title like Shattered Norns...is that really what you're looking for? Sounds like you're working on issues of fate, destiny, maybe frustration in realizing a fate or destiny...hard to say, for me, but I'm interested in finding out from you.

Anyway, it seems to me that if you really decide that you're just wanting to write scenarios, something like DBRP or MRQ will likely be as good a system as any. But if all this stuff about dreams, Heroquesting, etc. I see on your website is informing the scenario design at a deeper level, then your own game may be a better way to go, a game that will help you realize the scenario type in question.

A game by one of the local designers called The Mountain Witch shows how deep this can go, really. That game is really just a 'module' in the old-school sense, but a module that comes with its own system, one that brings out the reallly important issues for the kind of adventure story it is. You don't necessarily want to go all the way to that extreme, of course, but it may be a useful thing to look at for figuring out what you do want to do with your game.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

I've actually read a number of the Mountain Witch posts and was very impressed with the concept.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12173.0 and

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14333.0

for those who are interested in more on that topic.

Part of what got me started again was obviously the request to help expand Starstrands.

Most recently it was the sale of some of my old papers, the Elemental Planes and the City of the Revenaunt.  Several people involved in that, including a publisher, played with the idea that they might revamp them for 1st ed. AD&D or something similar.  If you read the stories you can see how I move back and forth between interpreting things in terms of Diablo II LOD (to illustrate things in computer FRPG examples), Runequest, Heroquest (the new Stafford game version) and AD&D.  I find it easy to translate and move back and forth.

At present I don't think any of those projects are going anywhere.  But, I'm trying to decide on a translation or a new iteration.

You are right that powerful, heroic adventuring is difficult if you don't transcend some of the limits of RQ and that HQ isn't structured enough (or too structured, depending on whether you are talking the exploration of my world or what is needed to play in Greg's).  But it is possible to transcend with RQ/BRP.

I wouldn't post if I had clear answers. ;)

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

BTW, let me know what you think of the Mistworld pdf I mailed you.  It has typos, and was written towards a moving target that did not materialize, but it does have a spell and counterspell system, and one of the few systems where you can run away from hostile magic at times.

I'm curious if it is worth the effort to do a creatures book and a scenario set when Delux BRP comes out (or to translate to my own system, where it started).  I'm too close to it.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

BTW, thanks to all for the e-mailed comments.

Let me know what you think of Mistworld after you've looked at the pdf.

[Calithena]

Hi, Steve -

I can give you some preliminary thoughts on Mistworld.

1) I love the setting - lots of really nice, evocative stuff. I can see the place in my head, it's interesting, and I want to explore it.

2) The system seems to be a simplified BRP, heading in an OD&D direction. Here are two comments that might be more useful:

a) You get that hit points are essentially a pacing mechanism and so apply them to other kinds of activities characters might undertake in the world. This is not bad per se, but as a default resolution system it strikes me as too slow to be worth it. The cliff should have resistance points if it's the last thing you have to climb to get to the Fountain of Lamneth, but otherwise, man, make it one-roll or just narrate climbing up it. Life's too short to apply this kind of resolution system to anything interesting a character tries. Also, in practice people generally won't, which will encourage fudging and/or sliding more-or-less consciously to freeform play.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a good way to 'grain out' a skill resolution system for dramatic attempted actions. But don't grain it too much - a 5% fumble chance like you have it means that if there are three rolls in a try, 1 in 8 tries will be a fumble, and it just goes up from there - and rolling over and over is boring unless there's some dramatic reason to. I'd have it as a backup to a one-roll system for more ordinary stuff if it were me.

I also think that it would be worth your time to start thinking in terms of conflict resolution, where you only roll when the players of the game (including the GM) actually want a conflict over something, either because they are agreed that conflict would be interesting at that point (thanks VB if you're reading this) or because they disagree on how things should go at that point.

b) Like the setting, the magic is wonderfully colorful and evocative. I think you might have some interest in a system Jeffrey Schechter was working on a while back: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16443.0 . He's got some similar spell categories but was trying to work out some interesting, 'gamey' ways to make the spell dueling more fun. (If Jeph's reading this, I'm looking forward to that game, man, what happened to it?) I see potential applications to your system as well.

-------------------------------

But what's the point of playing in Mistworld? What do people do there? They adventure, right? What's the endpoint of the adventures? To have experiences? Get rich? Find their destiny?

If you don't feel a need to answer these questions, and you're more interested in developing your fantasy world relative to the standard adventuring paradigm - which is a totally valid decision - then with your good name and ideas tacking it to Mongoose's new Runequest rules, or Questworlds when it comes out (generic Heroquest), seems like a good plan to me. On the other hand, if you want to really make the game about exploration, or a particular family of narratives, then maybe you've got a whole new design lurking here instead of a world. You're the one to answer that, of course.

At the risk of shameless self-promotion and making certain assumptions about what you're after at the same time, though, I have been giving the kind of fantasy roleplaying I did in the seventies and early eighties a lot of thought lately. It's not catered to especially well either by the old games or the games here at the Forge, to be honest, because of the strong focus on exploration and setting some of us had back then. (The new mainstream games are by and large completely, totally, utterly worthless for it though.) The design on my website (in the Swordsmen & Sorcerers forum discoverable from my sig, still woefully incomplete, but I'm adding to it regularly) is actually intended to support this style, so I'd be interested to see what you think about that, if you're surfing around at some point.

Anyway, whatever you decide, I do really like the setting and encourage you to pursue it. It's going to be hard to say much more than that without knowing more about what the characters (and players!) do during a game there, in your mind, though.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

I can give you some preliminary thoughts on Mistworld.

1) I love the setting - lots of really nice, evocative stuff. I can see the place in my head, it's interesting, and I want to explore it.

2) The system seems to be a simplified BRP, heading in an OD&D direction. Here are two comments that might be more useful:

a) You get that hit points are essentially a pacing mechanism and so apply them to other kinds of activities characters might undertake in the world. This is not bad per se, but as a default resolution system it strikes me as too slow to be worth it. The cliff should have resistance points if it's the last thing you have to climb to get to the Fountain of Lamneth, but otherwise, man, make it one-roll or just narrate climbing up it. Life's too short to apply this kind of resolution system to anything interesting a character tries. Also, in practice people generally won't, which will encourage fudging and/or sliding more-or-less consciously to freeform play.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a good way to 'grain out' a skill resolution system for dramatic attempted actions. But don't grain it too much - a 5% fumble chance like you have it means that if there are three rolls in a try, 1 in 8 tries will be a fumble, and it just goes up from there - and rolling over and over is boring unless there's some dramatic reason to. I'd have it as a backup to a one-roll system for more ordinary stuff if it were me.

Ahh, you've slid, gently, into my favorite example, the pilot taking a ship out of the harbor.

RULES0 -- ALTERNATE SKILL SYSTEM
       

                          Steve Marsh's Skill System
       
       
            This system is expressed in percentile terms.  It translates
       easily into 3d6 terms and can be used in a 3d6 system.
       
       
       BASIC SYSTEM
       
            Most tasks are determined by a roll of (skill + %tile  roll)
       - (y*10%).  y is determined by the degree of randomness/difficul-
       ty  in the task.  All skills are expressed as a number  level  as
       skill  n%,  where skill is the name of the skill and  n%  is  the
       skill  level.   For each 5%tiles obtained above 0% one  point  of
       effect  is  done (rounding up {e.g. 1% is rounded up  to  5%  for
       determining effect).
       
            For  example, a character might have jogging at skill  level
       60% or jogging 60%.  Jogging on a track is a 0 level,  nonrandom-
       ized,  task.  The result of someone jogging on a track is  deter-
       mined without the randomizer (skill + 0%) - 0%.  A jogging  skill
       of 60% would mean that each round of jogging the character  could
       do  60 points of jogging for 12 points of effect.  <(60% + 0%)  -
       0%>/5 = 12.
       
            (with %tiles, divide the % by 5 to get the number of points. 
       I.e.   a skill of 60% would do 12 points a round in an  unapposed
       situation).
       
            Cross country jogging on a path is a 10% level task (i.e.  y
       =  10%).  The skill of 60 would do (60 + d10%) - 10%  per  round. 
       In  addition,  tools can increase the result  done.   Magical  or
       bionic shoes could add to skill, results or could alter the level
       of the task. 
       
            Non-magic tools add to the dice roll.  Good shoes might  add
       +2  to  the  results of jogging.  Often  tools  have  conditional
       impact.   That  is, a tool's addition comes only  if  a  positive
       result is first made.  This is most common in combat.
       
       
       COMBAT
       
            This system works well with combat.  Treat combat as usually
       being  a 100% level task.  A skill of 60 would do (60 + d100%)  -
       100 points per round and would have a 60% chance to hit.  With  a
       normal 1d8 tool (such as a sword) at 60% skill one would do <(60%
       +d100%) - 100%>/10 per round at skill level 60%.  Every  positive
       roll would add 1d8 (for the conditional tool) to the result.
       
            Parry skill can be added to combat by having the parry skill
       added to the minus side of the equation.
       
            Thus  60% skill to hit vs 40% parry becomes (60% + d100%)  -
       (100% + 40%) or d100% - 80% -- a 20% chance to hit.
       
       COMPLEX PROBLEMS
   
            Some  problems regenerate, some have  initial  difficulties. 
       Many tasks can have help from tools.  Let me give some examples.
       
       Piloting a ship
       
            Wavestalker has an enchantment worth +15% on a superior ship
       worth 10% and a skill of 30%.  Leaving the harbor in his ship  is
       a 3 point a round task.
       
            That means, that to successfully leave the harbor Starstrid-
       er must earn 3 points each round of play.
       
            On  take-off without any trouble he does 6+3+1  (10)  points
       per  round  on a 3 point task.  He has a good margin  of  safety. 
       Each round he gets 7 points ahead.
       
            Two  rounds  into the channel he  encounters  minor  weather
       trouble -- a mild squall.  That is a 20% level task/problem.   He
       now  does (55% + d20%) - 20% points per round.  He is still  safe
       and  still getting ahead.  That is, he does 35% + d20% (or  7+d4)
       points per round into solving the task.
       
            This  is  the way that a normal harbor exit should  go  even
       with minor weather problems.  However . . .
       
            Suddenly  the spell is dampened as the ship breaks the  spar
       the  spell was enchanted to (wood rot that he did not  check  for
       after  the winter ended).  Wavestalker is now in a (30% + d20)  -
       20% situation.  (or 2 + d4) 
       
            As  the weather worsens with rain(+30% to his  problems)  he
       slips  into a (30% + d50%) - 50% situation.  He is now at d50%  -
       20%  every  round  and could be losing ground.   Add  a  variable
       strong  wind  for a storm and he is at (30% + d100%) -  100%  (or
       d100% - 70% per round).
       
            He is going to start losing that comfortable margin he built
       up.   Luckily for him he makes it back to the dock before  things
       get too sticky.
       
       Reading a foriegn language
       
            Starstrider gets everything fixed and docks at Helvitia.  He
       speaks  15%  of Helvitian.  With his skill he goes into  a  cheap
       restuarant and takes a menu. 
       
            A  simple menu will take d6-0 points to read.  It will  (due
       to  formating) have d3 points of "armor" (Starstrider will  never
       read  some  difficult menus).  As long as  his  dinner  companion
       doesn't  stress him (10% as a level one stress) he will do his  3
       points a round until the menu is read (or he gives up and  guess-
       es).   He reads the menu (which took 3 points to understand,  and
       which had 1 point of armor) in two rounds.
       
       Climbing a cliff
       
            Later he is climbing a bit of cliff.  He's in a hurry  since
       he dropped his sword and the wolves are getting closer.  He has a
       skill of 20% and climbing equipment worth 20% points.  The  cliff
       w' wolves is a 20% problem and because of the shale he has to  do
       2  points before it starts to count (2 points armor on the  prob-
       lem). 
       
            This cliff takes two points per meter to climb. 
       
            Lets put the numbers together.  (20% + {tools} 20% + d20%) -
       20 every round.   He does 4 + d4 points every round.  He rolls  a
       10  on  d20% resulting in 6 points earned (less the 2  points  of
       armor  the cliff has from the shale problem).  This  gets  Waves-
       talker 2 meters up the cliff before the wolves arrive. 
       
            Had  he been a bit more rushed this would have made  a  good
       100%  problem with him at (20 + 20 +d100%) -100% per  round.   At
       d100% - 60 he would have probably been caught by the wolves.
       
            He'll need to continue to be careful as he climbs higher  so
       that he doesn't earn negative points, but at 2 meters he is  safe
       until help arrives.
       

Note that if climbing a cliff is done without hurry, it is just a matter of climbing the cliff.  You do  your points every round.  It is only when there is significant opposition or hurry that you have issues that involve needing to roll at all.

My original 3d6/2d10/d20 system used 1 for a fumble and 20 for a crit.  The guy who takes the safe course and uses 3d6 never fumbles or criticals.  The guy who is workmanlike never fumbles and rarely (1% of the time) gets a critical.  The prototype berserker who always d20s, fumbles or crits 10% of the time, 5% each.

Jogging on a track, swimming laps in a pool, you will just grind away at it.  No crits, no fumbles, no rolling, just doing your points, covering your distance, no need to do anything except note how long it takes if time is important.

But what's the point of playing in Mistworld? What do people do there? They adventure, right? What's the endpoint of the adventures? To have experiences? Get rich? Find their destiny?

If you don't feel a need to answer these questions, and you're more interested in developing your fantasy world relative to the standard adventuring paradigm

...

for Mistworld, that is the purpose, to adventure for experience and adventure and exploration in the standard paradigm from the old days.

People find that rewarding.  It is why so many people played Diablo and Diablo LOD and now World of Warcraft, etc.  I was just looking for a different and evocative setting for it.

Shattered Norns?  I'm still not sure.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

Though you've made a good point.

I need to expressly state that for most tasks that are within a character's skill, absent opposition or time constraints, the game master should just narrate/ignore the task as a conflict and instead treat it only as a narrative event.  I.e. most times a pilot will safely leave a harbor without any dice rolling, a meal will get ordered without delaying for dice rolling, etc.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

FUMBLES
       
            If you want fumbles, you can use a roll of 01% to 05% and  a
       result of negative numbers to mean negative results to the extent
       of the negative numbers generated.  This means that when a highly
       skilled individual klutzes the results won't be as bad.  This  is
       true  to  life.   A highly trained swimmer who slips  up  gets  a
       mouthfull of water, a neophyte starts to drown.
       
       
            In  addition,  the more difficult the  situation,  the  more
       likely bad results are to occur.  In a 100% situation bad results
       are alot more likely than in a 10% situation.  A positive  number
       (even  with  a  01%) means that the bad result was  just  a  slow
       result (i.e. you rolled a 01% when you could have rolled higher).
       
       
       TRANSLATING CHARACTERS
       
            Note that using this system a character is freely  transfer-
       able  between  this  and any 3d6 skill  resolution  system  (like
       Pendragon).   Characters are easily transfered between  this  and
       %tile  systems.   For %tile systems, just use the  same  numbers. 
       This system is transparent to characters under RUNEQUEST.
       
            Any  number (vs %tile) skill is multiplied times 5%  to  get
       the percentile skill.  I.e. a Pendragon sword skill of 5  becomes
       25%.
       
            This  allows for simplification when you do not  desire  the
       extra  complications of this system, and detail when you want  to
       know  just how long it will take to pick that lock or climb  that
       cliff.
       
       
       DICE RANGES
       
            d100  is the base range.  d100 divided by two is  d50.   d50
       divided  by two is d25.  d25 divided by two is d12.  d12  divided
       by two is d6.  Note also that d25 is fairly close to d20 and  d12
       is fairly close to d10.
       
            Commonly,  difficulties are done on d10, d20, d50 and  d100. 
       Extremely  difficult situations (such as simple heroquests)  call
       for  2d100.  Trancendentally difficult situations (such  as  deep
       heroquests, etc.) call for 3d100 or 4d100. 
       
            Note  that for a skill of 200% and no  difficulty  modifiers
       (4d100 + skill) minus (400 + difficulty) gives an average  result
       of  (400  - 400) 0 or a 50/50 chance of success.   At  just  d100
       difficulty  and skill levels of 300 on both sides the  chance  of
       success is still 50%.  The system handles both high percentage of
       success and high levels of difficulty very well.
       
       [return to table of contents]

For more on fumbles.  I'm not terribly fond of them.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

quote author="Steve Marsh (Ethesis)"]
Do you have a link to the thread?

I can't seem to find it. I think the following thread was sort of in reference to the one in question where we talked about the giant modules. In any case I refer to how such informed my own play: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17067.0


Following this is the thread in which we discussed the need for sample adventures and such (including my excuses for why we didn't include any): http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17690.0


Can't seem to find the precise one in question, however.

Too bad the comments in the thread don't seem to have migrated into most of the people posting.

Well I don't think that it's a big idea yet or anything. But I don't think that people are opposed to the idea. Anyhow, for several projects recently I've suggested having something like a sample adventure.


Note that for some of the sorts of designs promoted at The Forge, sample scenarios per se, are actually not as effective. In fact, in some ways, potentially damaging in how they inform GMs about how to make adventures. This is a tough concept to describe, but the problem is that for these sorts of systems, the only really good way to design an adventure is to know the players and the characters that they have developed themselves for play. This is a general problem with "hooks" for standard forms of modules meant to be plugged into "campaign play," right? Not knowing what the characters are, it's hard to design for them. You end up with D&D's "five to seven characters from eigth to tenth level." Which works for systems that are about player challenge well enough (though I've heard criticisms of the Challenge Rating system in the later editions). For a scenario that's meant to tell a story, however, it's hard to predict how to hook well.


In so called Narrativism promoting games they really don't work in most cases unless you know what the characters are like, because you're supposed to design the scenarios around the characters. In such designs showing a pregenerated scenario can wrongly inform the GM as to how to create a scenario. One solution is to provide pregenerated characters, so that one can see how closely linked into the adventure the characters are supposed to be. But that doesn't show the scenario creation process, either.


What's really important, IMO, is not only showing such a sample, but also teaching the skills involved in making the sample up. That is, in addition to the adventure should be an "example of play" that is the GM's thought processes and such that he went through to create the scenario.


Basically an example scenario only goes so far. It says, "Do this!" but doesn't show how to do it. What's better than simply the example to show how the right game prep leads to the right sort of play, is an example of how to do the prep in question. This was, for example, my advice to Mark Gagleotti for his sample scenario for his "Mythic Russia" game here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13759.0

I'll have to look, but one of the things that has really helped the Iss Heroquest Rules/Hero Wars Rules is the scenario books that have come out.  That's true narrative design work, and, I have to admit, something that Stafford taught me as well -- that you can write gripping scenario books for narrative rules that make the game come alive.

[Steve Marsh (Ethesis)]

Well... it's interesting. There are lots of people who, when making their game, leave out a lot of explanation and actually say that it's not a game for those who don't know how to play RPGs.

That was the RQ marketing strategy.  Pick up older, college age, players when they got tired of D&D and were looking for something more.  Worked very well for a long time.

I've read through all the reviewes and seen a lot of games.

Too many of them are "you can do anything, be anything, play anything" with this system -- to the extent that when I look at the games on the Indie Game Design thread what I see are many games that offer little to recommend them over just sitting down at the table and telling a story together.  Too much freedom.

I admit, Sorcerer doesn't fit that pattern.  And, much like real Call of Cthulhu, it really isn't for the entry level kids playing d20 games.

Basically it's a design mantra around The Forge that one should design a game that appeals to onself, and the small audience like oneself.

I've seen that as a mantra, but many of the games, as I read them, read more like games that can only be played by oneself.  Not enough is communicated of the essence of the game to carry more.

as broad an audience as possible.

Is exactly what too many of these games seem to be aimed at.  I'm all fo niche games.  In my day I played a lot of them.  When I get over to Sandy's, aside from the RQ campaign, we play a lot of niche games, including a lot of card games that tell stories/are FRPGish in the details of how they work out.

When I bring my 17 year-old she always wins. Three professional game designers currently employed in the industry, a number of us who have worked in the industry and she cleans up. 

And I think that we succeed admirably on the whole.

Many of the surviving games do succeed rather well.

No question about it.  I wouldn't waste my time on the boards here, especially after reading through most of the essays, all the reviews and a lot of threads.  I'm only still here because I'm positive in my evaluation.

I was thinking about the proposals I see.  The "my game" threads.

Lots of games that do not suggest any mechanic of how the game is played out.  Over and over again.  Unlike Dogs in the Vineyard (seems like Ken Pick should have written that one) which sets up the dungeons/towns pretty clearly, or My Life With Master that is nothing but how the game is played, many of these games miss that point.

BTW, I like redemptionist themes.  If you've read the stories that are linked to from the pages where I have my artwork (and not a single comment on the artwork I've got at http://adrr.com/story/ -- guess it really didn't grab anyone) you've caught that.

But if I came up with a mechanic for redemption conflicts (probably swiping it from a card game I'm thinking of), even with some examples, most people would be hard put to put together enjoyable themes and threads without a lot of initial support structured into the rules.

On the other hand, as a species of heroquest, they are easy to work into a heroquesting campaign from time to time.

I think we agree on a lot of things, I just feel that most people posting new games for comment have missed a number of core concepts that they need to have to succeed.  Honestly, if the theory thread were not closed, I would be trying to initiate a "core concepts" series of threads (or there ought to be some that are stickied).

I think the essays are great.  A lot of designers don't know what kind of playing the players are going to do and it helps to know what they are designing for, be it gamers or players or etc.  The Forge has succeeded in that those terms get thrown around freely, a solid base of jargon.

But world structures, character dynamics, rule stuctures as implying and supporting plot types, reward structures (what keeps people playing the game and for how long), I don't see those addressed that often in clear terms.

The "why your game needs focus rather than a grab bag approach" doesn't get mentioned over and over again.  The difference between a unique vision (spare me from too much more of that in fiction) vs. a compelling vision -- what makes something a generic fantasy vs. a realized world.

Anyway, it has been a great visit so far.