Hello Forge + I need a game to play/ I'm designing a game

[MusedFable]

I would like this post to accomplish these two things:
-I want to start playing an RPG I like as soon as possible
-I want to take measurable steps toward designing my own RPG

I'll start by introducing myself.  My name is Matt Kloth and I will be a game designer.  I was going to type want instead of will, but I've come to the conclusion that game designing is truly what I want to do with my life.  Since I was 12 I've never wanted to do anything else besides design games (all kinds of tabletop games:  rpgs, boardgames, miniature games, card games).  I've never shifted focus or changed my dream job, and I'm confident I will always want to be a tabletop game designer.  I'm being a bit defensive, but It helps to point out that I'm dedicated.

Over the last 9 years I've played more games than I can even count or remember.  I have read even more rules for games.  I have never, not even once, found a game that I thought was thoroughly good and fun.  I used to keep thinking the next game would be the game for me, but after almost a decade I have come to the conclusion that there isn't a single game made for me.  I'm not an impossible person to please.  There are movies (Shawshank Redemption, Fifth Element, Lost in Translation), books (Fafhred & the Grey Mouser, Perdido Street Station), and music (System of a Down, Frou Frou, Foo Fighters) that I like, but I've never come across a game that I like.  I listed that stuff to hopefully help express what I like.  I'll define what I mean by like.  When I first saw the Shawshank Redemption (at home, I've never seen it in a theatre) I immediately rewound the tape and watched it again; then I did it again.  Every now and then (a few times a year) I'll watch it again and still get this rush of happiness when Andy first stands in the rain a free man, and I still get teary eyed when Red finally meats Andy on the beach at Zihuatanejo.  I've never had the urge to play a second game of any tabletop game I've ever played.  After playing an extremely fun game of Pendragon we'll talk about how cool the story was or what the characters will do next, but it's never assumed we'll play with the same rules system again.  We might use a different rpg or make some house rules.  Sometimes we stick with the game because we want to see how the game plays out over multiple sessions.  The longest I've played a single rpg has been a d20 fantasy campaign with rules so house ruled and mangled that they didn't resemble any of the games they took from and the only reason the game functioned was from the shared collective of rules between the 3 of us.  That d20 fantasy game lasted 25 sessions over the course of 6 months.  The rules where an Amalgamation that collectively combined where 200 pages of dense text (that doesn't include any of the world except race mods, classes and stuff like that, but no "fluff").

I'm going to tangent a bit in this paragraph.  I'd like to say I don't find any pride or joy in not having a "go-to game".  I wish I was exited about the next supplement for my favorite rpg.  I'd also like to point out I'm not alone in this.  I have a wife and best friend who both share the same passion that I do (though neither likes nor wants to design games).  My friend Doug and I have spent our entire gaming lives together.  We've both played the near countless games (I really do mean I've played everything.  It's hard for me to convey to people that I've played over a thousand rpgs.  Most people don't even think there are that many.  Yes I realize that means we play games almost every day.  It makes it even more amazing/depressing that I've also played at least a tenth of the games listed on boardgamegeek).  My wife has been with me for 4 ½ years (2 ½ married) and has played all of my classic "don't sucks" (I've come to labeling games on a doesn't suck scale 1 means it really does suck and 10 means it's really well made and plays perfectly if only I actually liked how it plays).  That comment about "doesn't suck" is just an inside joke between us and our friends and isn't something serious.  I'm just pointing that out since I can't use body language to express my meaning on the internet.

One last paragraph about us.  I'd like to state that I don't like stereotypical gamers, and neither do Doug or Michelle (my wife).  I don't like anybody at my game store.  I don't like any of the gaming groups I've gamed with over the last decade.  And, I'm well aware that many people are not like this.  Michelle was "roleplaying" with her best friend in highschool without ever knowing what an rpg was.  Apparently they made a teenage soap opera up and roleplayed out the interactions between the characters.  I've only seen them do it once or twice and both of them said they feel uncomfortable when other people watching (they only do it when alone).  From what I can tell they really get into the roles and emotions.  I've heard them yell and have fights and I thought they where real fights until I heard one of them call the other Dante (one of the fictional characters names).  So, Michelle has been roleplaying oblivious to the hobby that Doug and I took up at the age of 12 and 13.  We (Doug and I) played lots of games together back then.  Car Wars and BloodBowl where the games that got us to go looking for others to play with.  After finding other "gamers" we almost gave up the hobby (really).  We've always felt like we where "slumming" when we where gaming.  Yes, I relies this makes me sound elitist, and slumming makes it sound as if I was rich (but in fact I was in poverty), but that's really how I felt/currently feel  We kept playing with others though just to get our "gaming fix".  We had a nice 3 year stretch in highschool where we found some old grognards who played 1st edition D&D, Vampire, Champions, and Paranoia and that was probable the least weird group.  These guys also played a ton of other non-rpgs (Dawn Patrol, hex and counter war games, Starfleet battles, Car Wars, Bloodbowl, Mageknight, Warlords CCG, ect).  We where the only ones under 28 years old, but we seemed to fit in perfectly.

Okay that's enough rambling about my playing games for a decade and not actually liking any of the games; lets get on with helping me find a game I can like.

After playing for so long I came to the conclusion that system doesn't matter (since I could play just about anything and still have fun).  I have now completely flip-floped and now realize I've been trying to morph every game I've ever playing to my playstyle.  The problem I'm having right now is that I don't know what my playstyle is.  All I know is that it isn't represented by most RPGs, and it isn't Narative-forgey kind either (nice descriptor huh).  I am having the hardest time figuring out what I like.

-I don't like continuously going up levels.  I also don't like static characters.  I want a system for changing the characters that can both make them better and worse.  Leaving it completely up to the players (the GM is a player) is not useful for me, because I will attempt to min/max my gains and losses.  That's why I hate things like Perks/Flaws because it inevitable leads to quadriplegic geniuses and dyslectic superjocks.

-I never fail to find a way to form all currency, experience, feats, skills, whatever into one big economy of points.  It's not normally a skill point "pick your poison from a menu" kind of skill points, but more off a conversion for everything.  Gold pieces can buy equipment.  Equipment gives pluses, so therefore gold pieces can functionally give stat plusses.  I've figured out a lot of the interesting things that happen while roleplaying are caused or enhanced by the characters needing to exchange one currency for another.

-I don't like morality tales taking center stage.  If I ever had a game that felt like Aesop's fables I would be very unhappy.  In real life I have a very odd outlook on life compared to everyone I've met (besides Doug and my wife).  I have no problem playing a character who is a devote Christian or a whorehouse manager.  I have a problem when the focus of the game is about trying to explore the issues of Christianity in the Old West.  For example:  Dogs in the Vineyard is a game I detest (but it does score a 9/10 on my doesn't suck scale).

-I want the characters to have character.  I want the characters to develop a personality.  Normally most of the characters I make are 2 dimensional at the start, but after a while they start to form there own qualities unto themselves.  I like it when I can say "But Superdood would never hit a lady" though I myself would have beat the snot out of She-Evil.  I want a game that mechanically helps give characters personalities.

-I like having meaningful tactics, but not too many.  I like having the choice between shield bashing a goblin 10ft back or stabbing him in the gut.  I want both of those options to be equally viable.  Even players who take the system and try and make a one trick pony will still have at least a few equally useful options in every encounter.  Twinked out Sniper Archer should still have more choices than shoot the mook on the right or on the left.  I mean real choices.  Anything you can mathematically prove is better is not going to be a choice for me.  I have and will figure out the AC/Power Attack ratio in D&D.  I would like to point out D&D has the least number of choices I have seen in a game (okay maybe not the least, but it doesn't have many).

-The choices being made should be focused.  There should also be only a few options.  This goes for everything.  The plot (bad choice of word, but I can't think of a better one), combats, chase sequences, romantic courtings, everything.  Having a million different options confuses everyone and slows everything down.  Not having any choices makes it really boring.  D&D manages to do both of those wrong (combats have 8million options and all are barely different).

-I don't like it when I can take direct control of the story and change it how I want.  I want the characters and situations to play out.  I don't like changing facts about the world to suit the situation (if two armies are marching tward each other and the map says there is a swamp I don't want any of the players to be able to change that fact).

-In contrast, I don't mind it when somebody takes some facts are plugs them in somewhere unexpected.  If Sir Grumbledook has just knocked down his arch nemesis and is holding a sword to his throat I would think it was cool if a player had the nemesis remove his helm only to show that he was Grumbledooks long lost brother.  I'd want the long lost brother fact already made a fact before hand though.  Just making that up on the spot would annoy me.

-I am most comfortable with a GM.  I've played games with no GM, but it always feels like a competition then.  Without the GM representing the majority of the antagonists it quickly becomes a non-rpg game.  Plot points turn into a method of beating the other players, so you can get ahead of them.

-I want there to be goals for the characters.  Leaving it up to the players tends to cause the game to focus on the games resources.  I'd like to have characters who's only goal is to live in quiet hermithood (of course the game system would create conflicts to this goal).

-my comment on the game system creating the conflicts for the hermit was a conscience decision.  I want the game system to facilitate play.  I'm not saying I want an automated game, but I do want the game to be designed to ease the creation of conflicts.  I don't ever want the GM to have to come up with something for the characters to do.

-We (all 3 of us) want to be attached to our characters.  Nobody ever plays somebody else's character (or if they do it's only for small non-important things).

-We don't mind playing multiple characters or switching between characters.  It doesn't bother us to go from one part of the "world" to another.  One time Doug played a traveling merchant that whenever in our campaigns port he would play (as well as his main character).  It never was odd to have him play two characters, and we never thought of him as an NPC just because he wasn't there 9/10ths of the time (he wasn't played when he sailed out of port).  Likewise we had a campaign that flipped between the two sides of an opposing war (though they never attacked there own other side characters); sometimes we switched to the other side mid session.

-most of my recent gaming has been with 3 people, and I am often GM.  It's not that they won't GM, but that I'm just better at it (don't take this to mean I think I am better at playing roleplaying games then them.  Over the last years we've just gotten to know each other really well and I happen to GM best.  I'd like to say that GMing doesn't including coming up with interesting plots; that's everyones domain).  I don't mind GMing, but some games make it feel to much like work.

-To expound (I didn't ever think I'd use that word) on the GMs workload.  The characters should give most of the direction of the game (any potential conflict should be devised from the character sheet).  The GM is there to play out everything that isn't the characters (NPCs and the rest of the environment).  The GM also gets some creative control too (since being the other players genie is a little boring); about as much as the other players.  The GM also gets final say on rules disputes (this hardly ever comes up, but since he isn't attached to any one character he is the most unbiased).

-I realize that my group takes some of the GM's power away compared to most other groups.  Normally the GM can do whatever he likes, but in our group he has limited resources.  He can't just chuck whatever monsters he wants at the group.  He has his own kind of currency.  I've only been playing with these types of GM currency rules for a year or so now, and before that most of my GMing was done by the seat of my pants.  It's just recently that I realized that I perform much better when given a limited scope and resources.

-I like anything "important" in the game to have rules.  If diplomacy is what the characters are going to be doing a good chunk of the time I want strategic and fun rules for diplomacy.  Of course the rules need to mesh with the setting.  So in a game of afternoon sitcoms men would have low empathy and high comedy and women would have the power of being right and bitchy.  This is nothing like my real world view, but I demand a game to have a set of rules for talking if the characters are going to be able to affect in-game resources by talking.


I just thought of something (already typing this has been useful).  The Players (including the GM) all have "player resources".  They can spend them on making characters, adding things to the world, ect.  The GM has the same number of player resources as everyone else, but he uses them on slightly different stuff.  He can add stuff to the world too, but he also can engage PC's plots.

What I'm looking to do is create an rpg, but I'm no expert in creating from scratch (I've Frankensteined everything so far, so coming up with base mechanics is not my expertise), so I need somewhere to start.  If there isn't a great place to start could someone explain/point me to a resource that explains/ or genereally get me some knowledge about creating a gamer from scratch.

I plan on using my own fantasy setting.  Its current name is Mythasy.  It has:

-Herbological/Alchemical Dr.Jeckel/Mr.Hyde Mutant/Orcs (but not ugly or evil):  They need rules for growing in size and raw stat manipulation.  They can also do a bunch of things by making potions/oils/extracts/salves that require rare plants and that create great benefits, but bad sid-effects

-Animal-morphers:  These are people who merge with animal spirits (willing and unwilling).  They then try and master the morph between the animal and themselves.  Starting out with small things like claws and senses, and the most controlled can morph into were- and –taur forms.  They also need mechanics for making the animal spirit stronger.  They make the animal spirit stronger by appealing to it's base nature (wolves hunt, pigs eat, ect).  They also need rules for loosing control and going overboard on the animal instincts.

-Faeriefolk:  They need rules for flying (the animal guys do too), teleporting, blinking, and overall they need to feel lithe and graceful.  They also need rules for using magic to charm, seduce, enrage, and every other kind of emotional manipulation.

-Undead:  Each type of undead shares one common game mechanic.  They need some kind of human body resource or they become weaker and die.  Zombies need to eat brains; Vampires blood;  Wraiths feed on your "soul" (which is paralleled to nerves and the senses).

-Steampunk Dwarves:  Every "race" is human, but it's easier to explain them as "dwarves".  Guns, steamarmor, replacement limbs, and whatever doohickeys the players come up with (a system of doohickey creation is partly already imagined).

-Summoners:  Rules for gating, demons, "gods".  There are no true gods in this world, but there are powerful outside forces/beings that can grant powers and send minions to help you.  They only require you to convert others to their cause/faith/worship (and if you don't meat a quota you become a minion and get sent to help others and work off your debt).

-Elemental Spiritualists:  The four elements, Assassins, and "Paladins" all in the same character.  They are also massively emotionally repressed and bottle everything up.  This means I need a stress system (Spycraft 2.0 has one for d20)

Alright now what I'm hoping others can do is point me in the direction of games that have any of these features.  I may have missed the game (I doubt it), or I may have missed over some details of the game.  I am most familiar with d20 (only because it is the most prevalent game system and if you buy 90% of the games out there like I do you'll end up playing a lot of d20).  I've also spent a great deal of time with White Wolf games.  I haven't mentioned many Indie RPGs but I have played a great deal of them, and still own a whole bookshelf (who woulda though there are a bookshelfs worth of indie games).  We also goof around with Fudge, RISUS, and other light generic games, but now that I feel system does matter I'd prefer something more focused.

I'd also like to point out that I have no problem talking opening about game mechanics; even mechanics in published games.  You can't copyright game mechanics and I don't know why this hobby/industry is so defensive of talking about them, so if you want to call my attention to a mechanic could you please post it so that others can comment too (forcing everyone who wants to help me to buy thousands of books seems stupid especially since it's not unlawful to discuss game mechanics).

P.S.  I am a far better orator than a writer, so If there is a gaping whole in my post it's because I can't type as fast as I think/talk so I loose a lot of my meaning when I type something, and often chunks of a thought.


P.P.S.  I just reread my post and really need to take some writting classes.  Anyone know of any books/advice that can help me keep up with my thought speed.  My post at times sounds like a junior high student doing a report.  For example the two sentences before this one feel like they have something missing between them.

[Tobias]

[Have you played/What are your experiences with/You could take a look at] Burning Wheel and Universalis.

Willing to talk more, of course, but if you have pre-formed opinions on them, I don't have to assume a start from 0.

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: your ideal setting
If you look around the Forge, you'll see most titles don't have seperate rulesets, but that the favored practice is to have "one roll to rule them all", to paraphrase. Basically, you have a one to a small handful of mechanics that cover everything without being brutally specific and exacting in detail.
Looking it over, I don't know if you want those things because thats what you're accustomed to seeing, especially if you've come off a run of mainly mainstream titles and a small sampling of indie, or if thats something you genuienly want.

I'm not going to try to tell you what you are and aren't, especially because most folks are a little bit of everything with a leaning toward one more frequently, but I'd revisit definiations of the types. To my eye, you like Gamest-like crunch, swapping currencies around for points, you like the stories that grow out of Nar play, and you seem interested in the minutea and fine book keeping that helps a Sim player know exactly whats going on.
I am interested if you have tried the games Tobias has listed, as either are excellent options. Awaiting further response!

[MusedFable]

Burning Wheel:  I played only 2 sessions of it during my Forge-flurry (When first found the forge I bought a whole bunch of the most talked about rpg's and played them rather quickly).  I probable didn't give BW as much focus and time as I should have, but I got the jist of how it plays.  I distinctly remember playing it between Sorcerer and My Life with Master; not that that adds to the discussion.

The scripted conflict was a neat thing to experience, but it gave me an odd sense of playing Robo Rally.  You give your robot some directions and then everyones robot activates at the same time causing chaos and amusement.  But it seemed to pull me out of the immersion.  I felt like I was pulling puppet strings to get my character to do anything.  I would rather feel like I'm the character (but we do speak in 3rd person when describing actions) and using the game system as my "physics" of the world.  The duel of wits seemed to annoy me the most.  It felt very forced and by the 3rd volley I was always playing the game and not the character.

When I first read the magic system in BW I thought it was going to be like Arse Magica or Elements of Magic (an OGL spell system), but it ended up having a spell list.  I don't want a spell list; I want a way of creating magical effects.

I don't like the black, grey, and white skill discripters.  I'd prefer if everything was on one scale, so I can visualize how much better one is than the other.  What does power 3b vs 3w look and feel like.  I'm sure if I played the game long enough I would become familier, but I still don't like the mechanical division of "special people".

I hate Artha.  I do not want other players judging the amount of funness I bring to the table.  It also annoys me because I don't like players directly effecting the characters in a "godly" way.  If I'm able to make a task easier on a character just because I as a player have some "player points" then I feel like I'm not really playing the character any more.

Lifepaths are neat, but in the end I don't need or want them.  I'm am certain I will just try and abuse them to give me a character with ending stats how I want them.  But, then I'm forced with some extra baggage I don't want or think adds to the character.  I also don't like how it feels there should be a lifepath for everything.  If I where to use BW for something besides Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Humans I would have to create a whole mess of life paths.

Steel is a good part of the game.  I need/want a mechanic for fear and panic or otherwise every PC will end up being He-man and only running away when it's a strategic advantage.

There are way to many Stats, Traits, Skills and other crap all over the dense character sheet.  I'd really have to streamline this game if I wanted to like it.  I really don't like each race having it's own list of traits. 

The advancement system is way to much book keeping, and slows down play for us.

The combat system (besides the scripting which I already covered) was not all that thrilling.  I don't want a gritty-every-small-detail-covered kind of system.  I prefer something more fantastic like an action movie.  Swinging from a chandelier or sliding on your back guns blazing is more my style.

The game also is way to bundled up.  I want more of a toolbox, and less of an intricate clockwork of a game.  I don't even know where to start if I where to try and make new spells, lifepaths, races, guns, well everything. 

Overall I would say it is a very well made game and gets at least an 8 on my doesn't suck scale.  BTW, reading Burning Wheel again helped quite a bit, so thanks for pointing it out.


Universalis:  I don't own this game anymore.  I own an entire rooms worth of RPG books, but I sold a $15 slim paperback.  That says how much I like this game.

We tried playing this game a few times to figure out why it was so well talked about.  This was a few years ago, so I wasn't as well informed about Narrative play.

The game comes down to one really simple thing.  You get coins.  You spend those coins on stuff you want.  Other players do the same.

I (we) can't find a game in that.  This game seemed to completely shut down our roleplaying.  I didn't feel as though I was playing a character as much as I thought we where playing some social party game like Pictionary, Charades, or Outburst.

Now that I think about it some more it's pretty good at what it does.  I just hate what it does.  I want more structure and utility.  The system needs to take a huge amount of responsibility for my group (I think there is some way of expressing this that the Big Model does well, but I'm no expert on it so I'll just assume you know what I'm talking about).

[MusedFable]

Re: your ideal setting
If you look around the Forge, you'll see most titles don't have seperate rulesets, but that the favored practice is to have "one roll to rule them all", to paraphrase. Basically, you have a one to a small handful of mechanics that cover everything without being brutally specific and exacting in detail.
Looking it over, I don't know if you want those things because thats what you're accustomed to seeing, especially if you've come off a run of mainly mainstream titles and a small sampling of indie, or if thats something you genuienly want.

I'm not going to try to tell you what you are and aren't, especially because most folks are a little bit of everything with a leaning toward one more frequently, but I'd revisit definiations of the types. To my eye, you like Gamest-like crunch, swapping currencies around for points, you like the stories that grow out of Nar play, and you seem interested in the minutea and fine book keeping that helps a Sim player know exactly whats going on.
I am interested if you have tried the games Tobias has listed, as either are excellent options. Awaiting further response!

When I was going over my settings "races" I wasn't saying they all need different mechanics.  After rereading that It does sound like I want to model my game off of Exalted or something.  If I could get my entire setting to run with a 8 page set of rules I would love that.  In fact I prefer less system to more.  Redundancy is a bad thing for me when playing RPGs.  I do feel that the game mechanics should make things that feel different feel different.  It's hard for me to explain this.  I want flavor text to be mechanically meaningful or at least have the mechanics back up the "fluff".  If Alchemists make potions of flaming bursts, and Elementalists throw fireballs it wouldn't bother me if both used the exact same game mechanics (because they are both just different ways of making a fireball happen).  On the other hand I like being able to use the games mechanics as a sort or "science" to find new and odd ways to use the system.  If Alchemists can bottle up a potential fireball and smash it to release it while Elementalists need to summon the fireball on the spot there needs to be a mechanical difference (but that seems obvious).

I like minimized game mechanics as long as they retain the settings flavor.

[Frank T]

Have you ever tried a matrix game? It's not crunchy, but for the rest could fit your style.

What you say sounds to me like: "I want distinct but not detailed rules." I'm not quite sure if that is at all possible.

- Frank

[Josh Roby]

Matt, have you read through the GNS and Big Model essays yet?  Have you read through Vincent's Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore?  I just want to know what kind of terminology we can throw at you.

I'll second Frank on the distinct but not detailed thing.  Have you considered that you may enjoy more elements than 'fit' in one game, and that some of the things you like conflict directly with the other things you like?  Sort of like the surfing and skiing, you just can't do both at the same time?

[Paul Czege]

Hey Matt,

They're both very different, but two games I'd pull off my shelf to show you if we were having this conversation face-to-face would be Rune (by Robin Laws) and Bones.

Paul

[MusedFable]

Matrix games give way to much power to the GM.  Being the GM of a Matrix game feels like having a bunch of people arguing; all of whom have solid intelligent arguments and than randomly picking one as "the truth".  I would prefer the rules themselves to decide "the truth" or at least give strong guidelines.  Can Superman fly around the earth backwards really fast to go back in time?  I want the rules to answer that (or at least nudge it to 51% in one side's favor; which I will then choose).

Joshua, you can throw any terms you want at me.  In the last 2 years or so I've been an active reader of the Forge.  I know most of the terminology and if I don't I have no problem spending lots of time catching up.  More than likely I'll be butchering the terms and using the wrong ones all over the place, but I still think using the terms will be helpful for the discussion.

I understand GNS (well sim is a bit fuzzy), but I don't seem to want any one of the play styles exclusively, or even for prolonged periods of time.  I like gamist moments as long as they reinforce the games setting.  Narativist collective story moments are fun also.  I like when other players add something interesting to the story (like my long lost brother example in my first post) outside of their characters.  I like acting out my character and pushing against the game system to create new content.  I like when the game system draws conclusions to things that I or any of the players wouldn't have thought of.  I think this is Sim, but I'm not really hell-bent on getting the terms right since I don't seem to want any one of them for more than a few minutes at a time.  I like fidgeting with numbers in conflicts because that is my way of expressing my character into the game world.  At the same time I like having some player control over things.  But I don't want either exclusively.  One ends up feeling like a tactical board game, while the other makes me feel like I'm just making crap up with friends.  I seem to lean toward Sim play, but seeing as it's the one I understand the least that doesn't help me much.  In the end GNS hasn't helped me much, but it has increased my vocabulary.

Lumpley.  Vincent Baker has probed my mind and sent a direct feed of useful info straight into it.  He's the one that got the Big Model to make sense to me (of course I keep forgetting, and have to relearn it over and over).  Reading Lumpley games /hardcore has helped me (and my group) in play, a lot.

I'll second Frank on the distinct but not detailed thing.  Have you considered that you may enjoy more elements than 'fit' in one game, and that some of the things you like conflict directly with the other things you like?  Sort of like the surfing and skiing, you just can't do both at the same time?

Could you tell me what you think is conflicting, or doesn't fit together.  I may very well be hypocritical about some things, so I'd like to address those issues if I can so I can start playing a game I really like.


Paul:

Rune was far to competitive for us.  I'd like the GM to represent the opposition to the other players, but he should also get to add things to the story/plot/world that he finds interesting.  Introducing issues about gay marriage into a game should be possible for every player at the table, but if the GM can only add opposition to the other players he's a bit limited in his expression.

I've never played Bones (or even read it).  I have heard about it, but only so much as you make custom dice for everything (which I think is silly).


I'm having the hardest time figuring out what my Creative Agenda is.  I don't really know why I play RPGs.  I know I find them fun to play, but I never feel like I'm playing specifically how I want to play.  I like using the system to my best ability to try and overcome challenges.  I also like being immersed into the world and having a strong sense that the world is coherent and internally consistent.  I also like the escalating tension that games like Dogs in the Vineyard produce.

I don't know where to go from here.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Matt,

I don't know where to go from here.

Yeah, you don't want to play the bear in the pit, with folks throwing games at you and you shooting them down. If you want to take the conversation in a potentially productive direction, you might post in Actual Play about a roleplaying game session you particularly enjoyed.

(Have you seen Synthesis?)

Paul

[Adam Cerling]

Matt --

Don't take this the wrong way, but might you be "the bitterest role-player in the world"?

Ron describes this person in his Gamism essay:

The bitterest role-player in the world
Meet the low-Step On Up, high-Challenge Gamist, with both "little red competition" dials spun down to their lowest settings.

This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge Situation. In other words, the social-level Step On Up "emerges" from the events in-play. This view, and its problematic qualities, are extremely similar to that of the person who wants to see full-blown Narrativist values "just appear" from a Simulationist-play foundation. It's possible, but not as easy and intuitive as it would seem.

His preferred venue for the Gamist moments of play is a small-scale scene or crisis embedded in a larger-scale Exploration that focuses on Setting and Character. In these scenes, he's all about the Crunch: Fortune systems should be easy to estimate, such that each instance of its use may be chosen and embedded in a matrix of strategizing. Point-character construction and menus of independent feats or powers built to resist Powergaming are ideal.

As for playing the character, it's Author Stance all the way. He likes to imagine what "his guy" thinks, but to direct "his guy" actions from a cool and clear Step On Up perspective. The degree of Author Stance is confined to in-game imaginative events alone and doesn't bleed over into Balance of Power issues regarding resolution at all.

Related to the Stance issue, he is vehemently opposed to the Hard Core, even to any hints of it or any exploitable concepts that it seizes upon most easily. For instance, reward system that functions at the metagame level is anathema: not only should solid aesthetics should be primary, but he is rightly leery of the Hard Core eye for such reward systems. "Balance" for him consists of the purity of the Resource system and unbroken Currency. It's consistent with the Simulationist Purist for System values and represents further defenses against the Hard Core.

He probably developed his role-playing preferences in highly-Drifted AD&D2 or in an easily-Drifted version of early Champions, both of which he probably describes as playing "correctly" relative to other groups committed to these games.

This man (I've met no women who fit this description) is cursed. He's cursed because the only people who can enjoy playing with him, and vice versa, are those who share precisely his goals, and these goals are very easily upset by just about any others.

• His heavy Sim focus keeps away the "lite" Gamists who like Exploration but not Simulationism.
• The lack of metagame reward system keeps away most Gamists in general.
• Hard Core Gamists will kick him in the nuts every time, just as they do to Simulationist play.
• Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy just to piddle about and "be."
• Just about anyone who's not Gamist-inclined lumps him with "those Gamists" and writes him off.

I've known several of these guys. They are bitter, I say. Imagine years of just knowing that your "perfect game" is possible, seeing it in your mind, knowing that if only a few other people could just play their characters exactly according to the values that you yourself would play, that your GM-preparation would pay off beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Now imagine years of encountering all the bulleted points above, over and over.

At present, I have no suggestions to help them, just as I cannot help those who expect to see "story" consistently emerge from play that does not prioritize it. I hope some dialogue at the Forge might come up with some solutions.

If you are such a person, Matt, the question is whether the Forge has come up with the aforementioned solutions in the time since Ron's writing...

[Andy Kitkowski]

I don't know where to go from here.

Honestly? The nest step is to sit in front of your keyboard and start banging away at your first game.

BTW, your first game will probably suck. No need to go for Magnum Opus on the first try.  But get that first edsign under your belt.  Working towards something, anything, will help you to really crystalize what you want, and don't want, in a game.  Just start typing, type type type, and things will fall into place.

You'll most likely end up with a jumble, maybe some clearly broken bits, but a something that would be a great start to talk about. You can then bring that something to this forum, or RPGNet, or wherever, and we can help you look at your design, see if it meets your goals, make suggestions, help with broken bits, etc. 

Sounds like you're all wound up and ready to go... So go!

Also, just wanted to throw this out:  www.24hourrpg.com .  A lot of folks used the 24 Hour RPG project to cut their teeth on their first design.  It's only a 24 hour (realistically? 10-12 hour) commitment, and gets you into the motions of thinking about and writing games as a designer.

-Andy

[MusedFable]

Bitterest Roleplayer in the World... ummmm... FUCK!!!

It doesn't fit me to a T, but it comes pretty damn close.  But, I think I have a group of them.  The 3 of us all seem to play like that.

Well I'll be continuing anyway.  I'm going to start banging away at a 24hr rpg, and after Christmas when we start playing again I'll start posting some actual play.


If anyone finds any info on helping cursed bitterest roleplayers please chuck it my way.  It feels like you guys told me I have an incurable cancer.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, it seems like you need to make up your mind as to what you really want: If you want to play another game:
Setting: Do you want a settings intense game like white wolf or shadowrun or a settings lite game like D&D or GURPS
Rules: Do you want a Rules heavy game like rolemaster or D&D or rules lite game like the most of the games on the Forge
What do you want the game to emphasize (pick one): Character development, combat, story telling, game balance, etc.
  Sounds like you have played a lot of games. Maybe after you asnwer these questions, you can either find a game or have a basic outline for starting your own game.
  Good luck man!

[Josh Roby]

Could you tell me what you think is conflicting, or doesn’t fit together.  I may very well be hypocritical about some things, so I’d like to address those issues if I can so I can start playing a game I really like.

...

I’m having the hardest time figuring out what my Creative Agenda is.  I don’t really know why I play RPGs.  I know I find them fun to play, but I never feel like I’m playing specifically how I want to play.  I like using the system to my best ability to try and overcome challenges.  I also like being immersed into the world and having a strong sense that the world is coherent and internally consistent.  I also like the escalating tension that games like Dogs in the Vineyard produce.

Matt, it's not that you are hypocritical, any more than someone who likes vanilla ice cream and porterhouse steak is being hypocritical when he says he likes one, and then says he also likes the other.  You seem to be on this Holy Grail quest for the perfect game, going through all of these great games and discarding them because they're not vanilla ice cream and porterhouse steak at the same time.  Or perhaps more illuminating -- if you like clever comedies and you like gut-wrenching dramas, do you really expect to find one film that does both?

One thing that lots of people seem to gloss over is this: You do not need to claim a Creative Agenda as "yours" and stick with it.  It is possible to enjoy different games on their different merits.  Try playing a couple different games with an experimental, open frame of mind where your goal is not "find the perfect game" but "let's see how this game plays."  Take a day and start off with Beast Hunter for some nitty-gritty challenge, then shift over to Riddle of Steel for some immersion, then do a Dogs town for some escalating tension.  Think of it as a three-course meal of gaming.

Indeed, I find the prospect of "One Game to Rule Them All" to be rather disappointing.  It's like the magic pill that's a five-course meal all at once.  Popping those loses you the vast scope and variety that the culinary world offers you.  So too, the gamers who limit themselves to one title that is the "best" game are missing out on all sorts of different play experiences that can be interesting in completely different ways.  That one title doesn't scratch all your itches isn't a bad thing -- it just means that you can play something else the next day.