Character-Player Interface

[David Berg]

I was thinking along the same lines, and have 3 abilities which mirror yours: Reason, Focus (incorporating memory), and Perception.

There are important differences in the ways we intend to use these, but I'm guessing these are appropriate to the differences in our games.  You're trying to "help and inspire players to play characters different from themselves", and most of the systems you outlined sound well-suited to that.  My goal is more to allow players to direct their characters in a way that makes sense within the gameworld and doesn't interfere with anyone's immersive experience.  A lot of your systems would somewhat interfere with immersion for me, but that may be fine for your game -- the trade-off may be well worth it.

So, keep that in mind as you read my responses below.

Sir Justin has Reason -1, Perception +1, and Focus +2.

I am not sure how "spending points" intersects with these character attributes.  When you spend a Focus point, is it gone?  How do you get more?

Sir Justin: Hmm, I'm guessing they're just showing their devotion (you know, flagellating), but I'm going to make an error of reason, jumping to the conclusion that they're defiling the tomb. I need some Conviction points

I prefer to think "what would my character do?" as opposed to "what can I make my character do in order to get what I want?" 

Your example sounds pretty palatable, at least assuming that actual play wouldn't routinely include that amount of exposition, instead going more like:
Sir Justin: They must be defiling the tomb!
Narrator: Uh, well, that's possible, but-
Sir Justin: Reason -1, baby.

As long as the only actions that can get you Conviction/Action/Hero/Story points are actions that reflect "who your character is" (as defined by his attributes), then you're probably good, but from your example I can't tell whether or not this is the case.

Another thought: If every action that correlates well with a positive or negative score on a character sheet is rewarded, characters may start out seeming nicely distinct, but eventually become a bit predictable and simplistic.

Narrator: As you charge forward you slip on the water covering the stairs.
Sir Justin: Wait a second! I would have noticed the water.
Narrator: Ok, I'll be clearer next time

Yeah, GM, be clearer!  I'm not a big fan of rewinds and do-overs.  I'll address that below.

Implied Intent: While you might not describe everything your character would be trying to perceive, your character still is on the look out. Each Perception point you spend compels the Narrator to answer a vague question like "do I notice anything that might help me out of this prison cell?"

Another solution would be to have the player make a Perception roll/expenditure and a Reason roll/expenditure, answering the question in two parts:
1) you Perceive a drain pipe above a cell bar
2) you Reason that the cell bar under the pipe might be weakened from water damage

Percept: A percept is the mental impression of what the senses perceive. While you might not be clear about what the Narrator is describing, your character might know exactly what it is. Each Perception point you spend allows you to get a one or two word answer about the identity of what you're witnessing. For example, you might have no clue what "a large stinking vulture-like bipedal creature with murderous eyes and an aura of evil" is, but your character might recognize it as a demonic vrock. If your character wouldn't know, then the Narrator may veto your expenditure.

The last sentence makes me happy.  The converse would also make me happy -- if your character would know, why should he have to spend points or roll against his Perception score to have the Narrator fill him in?

Taken into Account: When you don't notice something because you weren't paying attention or your Narrator wasn't clear enough (not because it was hidden), your character still notices it. Each Perception point you spend allows you to have noticed something after the fact – the scene is re-played from the time you noticed.

Interesting.  If all the players are oblivious, and equally so, this works out well.  The most Perceptive characters notice stuff, and benefit themselves/the group accordingly.  However, two less positive options:
1) Player 1 wants to notice stuff, but doesn't want to buy a high Perception score, so he asks the GM lots of smart questions and takes advantage of his own good memory.  Player 2, an oblivious doofus who wanted to play a perceptive character, becomes grumpy that he bought a high Perception score but isn't getting anything out of it because Player 1 always beats him to the punch.
2) Player 1, who would otherwise have been invested in paying attention and asking the GM smart questions, buys a high Perception score and proceeds to play passively, doing what he feels like, confident that he has a rewind-and-do-over button.

Visualize: While you might have trouble visualizing the scene, your character witnesses what's going on in its entirety. Each Perception point you spend allows you to consult with one map, picture, or other visual aid; your character must reasonably have access to such information. If no aid is available, the Narrator will sketch something up for you.

Sketches are always helpful in helping players gain the spatial knowledge their characters have.  Why should you have to spend a Perception point to get this assistance?  Does the Narrator tell players who have low-Perception characters, "Sorry, if you couldn't figure it out from my description, then your character can't tell how high the ceiling is, or how many steps away the charging guy is, or whether there's enough room to circle around the barrel."? 

"But Narrator, my character is right there!  My Perception isn't negative ten!"

Wiggle Room: The Narrator provides you with information about what your character perceives, but often such description has to be somewhat vague in order to keep the game moving. While you might not get the full picture of the scene, your character does. Each Perception point you spend allows you to make one reasonable assumption about the scene's environment, such as a chandelier in a duke's palace.

So, wait, if the Narrator hadn't planned on a chandelier being present, a player can make one be present by spending a Perception point?  That is absurdly powerful for players with a good sense of physical strategy.

It also shatters any illusion that the gameworld exists in its own right independently of the players' gaming.

Focus
Focus represents the mind's ability to concentrate despite distraction, to remember information, and to absorb new lessons. It is used to maintain control over a supernatural power, perform an action despite violent motion, recall a bit of obscure lore, recognize a guard you've seen before, or advance a skill.

That's an interesting combination of abilities.  "Do X despite distraction" sounds like "focus".  (And I like the attention to physical actions that require focus because of physical circumstances.  That's a unique arena for invoking mental abilities.)

"Remember stuff", on the other hand, doesn't sound like "focus" to me.  Rolling that into one stat with "do X despite distraction" might be a fine move, as long as you make that very clear to avoid wrong assumptions based on the name.

Memory Aid: While you might be unable to remember new information, your character retains it like a sponge. Each Focus point you spend compels the Narrator (or another player) to provide you with a memory aid – a handout, chart, or mnemonic device for example – regarding one scene, character, object, place, or organization.

I like the gist of this, but interrupting play to draw a chart for someone would suck.  Paying points to get memory help is cool, but paying points to pass off the work of writing stuff down is not.  I'd say that using this ability should compel others to help you decide what you will write down (where? back of the character sheet? this deserves some thought) to aid your memory.

Quick Recap: While you might be foggy about what's happened in the game, the events are clear in your character's mind. Each Focus point you spend compels the Narrator (or another player) to provide you with a quick recap of last session's events (or, if you've just arrived at the game late, that same session). Each additional point you spend extends the number of sessions recapped.

Again, I wonder if requiring point expenditure for this makes sense -- it kinda implies/assumes that characters with low Focus are mentally disabled to the point of not remembering what they ate for breakfast fifteen minutes ago.

Recall: When you forget something, your character probably knows it. You may spend a Focus point to get a reminder from the Narrator or another player of your choice; this may take the form of "do I recognize the guard?" If it's disputed or no one can remember clearly, the player whose character has the highest Focus has the final say.

I bet using this ability will be more popular than using Memory Aid.  Only playtesting will tell if Memory Aid gets used at all...

Take a Break: While you might get tired of a scene, your character is intently focused. You may spend a Focus point to take a short break from the scene or to gloss over events and get on with the main adventure – of course, you'll either revisit the glossed over events in a flashback or you'll give the Narrator say over what transpired "behind the scenes." For example, you might get tired of trying to figure out a puzzle and decide to pick it up later, or even to solve it in between game sessions.

So if the character has a higher Focus than other characters, his player has more right than other players to announce, "I'm bored with this part, let's fast forward"?  When to break and when to fast forward sound like much higher-level player concerns than character attributes.  If you do want to connect the two, I think everyone should have to pay a Focus point (and everyone should always have a Focus point to use for this).

Weaving/Framing: These terms refer to taking control of the narrative. Weaving gives you control for a short moment to declare what you discover, whereas framing makes you the Narrator for an agreed upon time, usually depicting a tale told within the game.

Giving players the ability to take control of the Narration is an interesting choice with many advantages and drawbacks (see "Wiggle Room" response).  But I don't see any advantage to tying this to a character's Focus stat.

[aaronil]

I am not sure how "spending points" intersects with these character attributes.  When you spend a Focus point, is it gone?  How do you get more?

Ok, the idea began as an add-on to a standard attribute+skill system of resolution. The original idea was to make attributes more relevant to the actual game and how player depicted their characters. So, you can still make an attribute check as normal.

When you spend a Focus point, yes it's gone and your focus drops by one. However, you replenish your attribute pools at the end of every game session. Alternately, characters have a reserve of Action/Conviction/Hero/Story points (with various uses); spending one of these points replenishes one of your attribute pools.

I prefer to think "what would my character do?" as opposed to "what can I make my character do in order to get what I want?"

I totally agree, and share your perspective that "playing is the reward and no other rewards are needed to keep my in the game." However, not everyone is of the same mind. Consider this approach a bridge for those less evolved role-players. ;)

Your example sounds pretty palatable, at least assuming that actual play wouldn't routinely include that amount of exposition, instead going more like: *snip*

You got it, baby. Of course, there's nothing stopping a player from making a longer exposition if they wish.

Narrator: As you charge forward you slip on the water covering the stairs.
Sir Justin: Wait a second! I would have noticed the water.
Narrator: Ok, I'll be clearer next time

[Yeah, GM, be clearer! 

Actually I think the GM was being fairly clear (yes, there was room for improvement) because he mentioned it had just rained and that the stairs were glistening. My guess is you would have liked the GM to have provided a warning like "Are you sure you want to charge down wet stairs?" You and I disagree about how clear the GM was being. That's the point. In a situation where most narrative control rests in the hands of the GM, players will disagree. What seems clear to one person, another might be oblivious to. Hence these "nifty tricks" to help a player run their highly perceptive inquisitor-tracker.

Another solution would be to have the player make a Perception roll/expenditure and a Reason roll/expenditure, answering the question in two parts:
1) you Perceive a drain pipe above a cell bar
2) you Reason that the cell bar under the pipe might be weakened from water damage

I like that. It's sort of the extended contest version. You've definitely given me something to think about!

1) Player 1 wants to notice stuff, but doesn't want to buy a high Perception score, so he asks the GM lots of smart questions and takes advantage of his own good memory.

There are a few assumptions here.
First, that attributes are bought with a limited supply of points; on the contrary I'm considering three different systems: artwork-based, life-path based, and bidding based. If I did go with a point buy system I would be very careful to talk with the players before hand about these potential pit-falls that you've raised.
Second, that the GM would answer all of the players questions without referencing the Perception of the character in question or calling for a Perception check. Of course, this requires a sharp GM who is not going to be tricked.

Player 2, an oblivious doofus who wanted to play a perceptive character, becomes grumpy that he bought a high Perception score but isn't getting anything out of it because Player 1 always beats him to the punch.

I'd argue that if Player 1 is beating Player 2 to the punch, that, under these rules, Player 2 will feel less dissatisfied than he would have felt without these rules (after all, before he had no way to play this perceptive character because he was always overlooking stuff and relying on other players to remind him). Also, you assume a competitive stance between Player 1 and Player 2; what if Player 1 used his great memory to help Player 2 instead of hoarding it to himself?

2) Player 1, who would otherwise have been invested in paying attention and asking the GM smart questions, buys a high Perception score and proceeds to play passively, doing what he feels like, confident that he has a rewind-and-do-over button.

Well, I very much doubt a player would do this. Keep in mind that attribute points are a finite resource and spending them also lowers your bonus on attribute (and related skill) checks. While they can be replenished by action/story points, these are an even rarer resource that have many uses, many which overshadow recharging an attribute pool. So, such a theoretical player could be passive at some points, but not throughout the adventure (unless they were burning all their action/story points, and even then they couldn't do this in perpetuity).

Sketches are always helpful in helping players gain the spatial knowledge their characters have.  Why should you have to spend a Perception point to get this assistance?  Does the Narrator tell players who have low-Perception characters, "Sorry, if you couldn't figure it out from my description, then your character can't tell how high the ceiling is, or how many steps away the charging guy is, or whether there's enough room to circle around the barrel."? 

I had been thinking the same thing, and now that I look at it my suggestion for a "visualize" use of Perception is absurd and supports the sort of adversarial GM-Player relationship you describe. Consider it nixed.

Wiggle Room: The Narrator provides you with information about what your character perceives, but often such description has to be somewhat vague in order to keep the game moving. While you might not get the full picture of the scene, your character does. Each Perception point you spend allows you to make one reasonable assumption about the scene's environment, such as a chandelier in a duke's palace.

So, wait, if the Narrator hadn't planned on a chandelier being present, a player can make one be present by spending a Perception point?  That is absurdly powerful for players with a good sense of physical strategy.

I wouldn't say absurdly powerful. As you said: the character is right there. The GM, by necessity, doesn't describe every detail. In a more narrative game this would be summed up as a simple rule: "Assume that whatever a player says is truth. Take it at face value and move on from there." Of course, a smart Narrator can spin an over-presumptuous idea for all kinds of mischief.

It also shatters any illusion that the gameworld exists in its own right independently of the players' gaming.

Well, only if it's severely abused. Consider two scenarios: A) a highly detailed immersive setting, and (B) a last minute game with a one sentence setting hook.
A) In the highly immersive setting players have presumably immersed themselves in it. They know the theme, the technology level, their character's relationships, the various faiths and so forth. I don't see a player in such a setting saying misusing this ability. After all, that a chandelier would be in the manor of a French duke isn't that much of a stretch, and doesn't hurt the game world at all. And certainly the GM's plot hasn't been harmed by the sudden realization that there's a chandelier in the room. It's not that it pops into existence, rather the character is taking advantage of something that was previously in the background that is only now coming to the foreground.
B) In the one-sentence setting players are looking to have an evening of fun. It may or may not be immersive, depending on the group's style. They know next to nothing about the setting and will create it as they go. In such cases it's easier for a player to abuse Perception points, but then again there's nothing pre-existant for them to damage. Instead, it's something for the GM to run with and adapt to...and in those cases where it's over the top to provide a guiding hand to keep the game true to the sentence hook.

Also, I think it might come down to the fundamental difference between our game styles as you pointed out earlier.

That's an interesting combination of abilities.  "Do X despite distraction" sounds like "focus".  (And I like the attention to physical actions that require focus because of physical circumstances.  That's a unique arena for invoking mental abilities.)

"Remember stuff", on the other hand, doesn't sound like "focus" to me.  Rolling that into one stat with "do X despite distraction" might be a fine move, as long as you make that very clear to avoid wrong assumptions based on the name.

I'm still looking for the right name for the "focus" attribute. I'm definitely aware of what you point out, just haven't found the answer yet.

Memory Aid: While you might be unable to remember new information, your character retains it like a sponge. Each Focus point you spend compels the Narrator (or another player) to provide you with a memory aid – a handout, chart, or mnemonic device for example – regarding one scene, character, object, place, or organization.

I like the gist of this, but interrupting play to draw a chart for someone would suck.

 
Ok, I should clarify that this would be only after the game session or at a designated break, not in the midst of things. That would *really* ruin my immersion.

Paying points to get memory help is cool, but paying points to pass off the work of writing stuff down is not.  I'd say that using this ability should compel others to help you decide what you will write down (where? back of the character sheet? this deserves some thought) to aid your memory.

Good points, thanks! I agree that spending the point is more a "cry for help" from the other players. As for where to physically write down notes, my group always has spare paper and I assumed that was a gaming staple. :) Of course, henna tattoos, sand paintings, or public art could work too.

Recall: When you forget something, your character probably knows it. You may spend a Focus point to get a reminder from the Narrator or another player of your choice; this may take the form of "do I recognize the guard?" If it's disputed or no one can remember clearly, the player whose character has the highest Focus has the final say.

I bet using this ability will be more popular than using Memory Aid.  Only playtesting will tell if Memory Aid gets used at all...

All this needs to be playtested. Hopefully I'll get to do some this month. I also agree that the "quick recap" and "memory aid" uses are tenuous at best. "Memory aid" could just be rolled into "recall" and "quick recap" gotten rid of completely.

So if the character has a higher Focus than other characters, his player has more right than other players to announce, "I'm bored with this part, let's fast forward"?  When to break and when to fast forward sound like much higher-level player concerns than character attributes.  If you do want to connect the two, I think everyone should have to pay a Focus point (and everyone should always have a Focus point to use for this).

Giving players the ability to take control of the Narration is an interesting choice with many advantages and drawbacks (see "Wiggle Room" response).  But I don't see any advantage to tying this to a character's Focus stat.

I have play-tested this and it's totally goofy. Glad you felt so too. ;) My player pointed out that fast-forwarding the pacing and wiggle room are really narrative tools that don't belong tethered to an attribute.

[baron samedi]

Aaron,

On a side note, I think from my gameplay experience that Dogs in the Vineyard RPG could give you a good example of what you're trying to achieve for players lacking in charisma trying to take their dream role of a character who's strong in this.

The four-level escalation process and the important out-of-character bid process driving to a conclusion doesn't require a strong player charisma/presence, but still creates intensity. I suggest you check it out.

Erick

[aaronil]

Thanks Erick, I'd like to check it out.
Eesh, now I've got 4 games on my list: HeroQuest, Burning Wheel, Primetime Adventures, and Dogs in the Vineyard!

Thanks for your input and suggestions.

[David Berg]

When you spend a Focus point, yes it's gone

Ah, okay.  That definitely curtails some of the "abuse by habitual reliance" pitfalls I foresaw.  I guess now it's just an issue of setting up costs such that a nice middle ground is found between "never worth it" and "always easily worth it".

and your focus drops by one.

Er, wait, your Focus attribute (the thing you use for skill checks etc.) drops by one?  Aren't attributes general descriptors of characters' relative strengths and weaknesses, that more or less define their in-game abilities?  Wouldn't screwing with such attributes render every character a sort of open ability template, where no one stays better or worse at certain things than everyone else?  It's an interesting idea (at the extreme, everyone could just allot points into attribute pools anew at the beginning of every session), but I get the impression that's not what you're going for...

That may just be a matter of degree...  However, another problem occurs to me.  What happens in-game when a character burns a Focus point, thereby becoming less capable of Focus?  "Suddenly, your character, having exerted his will to an extreme to remember the appearance of Evil Man, finds himelf mentally burned out and less able to focus on anything in the immediate future.  But, hey, dude, at least you now have a cool drawing of Evil Man to look at."  Burning Reason would actually be even weirder.  "Logic... skills... diminishing!  Can't... make... deductions!"

However, you replenish your attribute pools at the end of every game session.

If these are just points-that-buy-ability-uses, this is probably okay.  None of these abilities seem to be crucial enough to in-game success that players will just stop sessions prematurely to refresh pools.  On the other hand, if these are also attribute points, e.g. "how well I can focus", then I imagine awkward breaks would become routine:

"Well, we're about to enter the main bad guy's lair, and I want to be able to do my running shot with my bow, but I really want my full +3 Focus for those shots, and I'm down to zero Focus after getting all that help on remembering stuff this session.  So, my character pauses before the lair door.  Let's resume next week, with me at my full combat ability."

In a situation where most narrative control rests in the hands of the GM, players will disagree. What seems clear to one person, another might be oblivious to.

Good point.

1) Player 1 wants to notice stuff, but doesn't want to buy a high Perception score, so he asks the GM lots of smart questions and takes advantage of his own good memory.

There are a few assumptions here.
First, that attributes are bought with a limited supply of points

If that's not the case, then ignore my argument.  I wasn't worried about the simple fact that players have different aptitudes, just about using those aptitudes to exploit the character-creation system.

on the contrary I'm considering three different systems: artwork-based, life-path based, and bidding based.

Artwork-based?  As someone who can draw, that sounds cool to me, but what about people who can't?

Second, that the GM would answer all of the players questions without referencing the Perception of the character in question or calling for a Perception check. Of course, this requires a sharp GM who is not going to be tricked.

There's really no substitute for player attentiveness.  If you, as a player, think to ask a question, what's a GM gonna do, refuse to tell you what's right in front of you without a successful Perception check?  Usually, it's just a matter of an attentive player directing his character to "look closer" or "go over there and check it out".  I'm all about rewarding and encouraging this kind of attentiveness -- if one player is less attentive, and is therefore less effective at doing things his character should be good at, well that's his fault, and I'm okay with that.  But you may not be.

I'd argue that if Player 1 is beating Player 2 to the punch, that, under these rules, Player 2 will feel less dissatisfied than he would have felt without these rules (after all, before he had no way to play this perceptive character because he was always overlooking stuff and relying on other players to remind him).

True, you have given Player 2 the recourse of saying, "GM, help me out here.  My character has a high Perception."  I've just found that, in most games I've played, the GM's handouts to a stat-reliant player never measure up to the results obtained by players who are attentive, pro-active, and detail-oriented.

Also, you assume a competitive stance between Player 1 and Player 2; what if Player 1 used his great memory to help Player 2 instead of hoarding it to himself?

If that was the case, would either of them need your mechanics?

2) Player 1, who would otherwise have been invested in paying attention and asking the GM smart questions, buys a high Perception score and proceeds to play passively, doing what he feels like, confident that he has a rewind-and-do-over button.

Well, I very much doubt a player would do this.

Same effectiveness, less effort?  All but the most story- and immersion-centric players would do this.  That is, if not for your finite-resource-expenditure system.

So, wait, if the Narrator hadn't planned on a chandelier being present, a player can make one be present by spending a Perception point?  That is absurdly powerful for players with a good sense of physical strategy.

I wouldn't say absurdly powerful. As you said: the character is right there. The GM, by necessity, doesn't describe every detail. In a more narrative game this would be summed up as a simple rule: "Assume that whatever a player says is truth. Take it at face value and move on from there." Of course, a smart Narrator can spin an over-presumptuous idea for all kinds of mischief.

If there's an out-in-the-open agreement that super-convenient player setting contributions will be countered by super-inconvenient GM arbitration, and everyone likes that, great.
Player: I bet there's a chandelier right above me, with a long enough chain that I can swing on it to get into that second-story window!
GM: Okay, there it is.  Unfortunately, as you begin swinging back to generate momentum, a weak link in the chain goes, and you and the chandelier come crashing down.
Player: Ha ha!  That was fun.  Okay, I bet there's also a...

Unfortunately, I think what happens more often is that there is no agreement, or at least not one that genuinely satisfies everyone, leading to:
Player: I bet there's a chandelier right above me, with a long enough chain that I can swing on it to get into that second-story window!
GM: Uh... (thinks about rules, which tell him to accept this) crap.  Okay (thinks about the cool battle he had planned to get the characters up to the second story), there it is.  Unfortunately (thinks about how to sabotage this), as you begin swinging back to generate momentum, a weak link in the chain goes, and you and the chandelier come crashing down.
Player: Hey!  What the hell?  Why would it have a weak link?  You just didn't want me getting into that window!

It also shatters any illusion that the gameworld exists in its own right independently of the players' gaming.

Well, only if it's severely abused. Consider two scenarios: A) a highly detailed immersive setting, and (B) a last minute game with a one sentence setting hook.
A) In the highly immersive setting players have presumably immersed themselves in it. They know the theme, the technology level, their character's relationships, the various faiths and so forth. I don't see a player in such a setting saying misusing this ability.

Okay, you have more faith in players resisting the urge to use every method they can to gain an advantage than I do.  :)

If the players' only motivation for contributing to the setting is to help the GM flesh it out and make it real and vivid for all concerned, then great.

It's not that it pops into existence, rather the character is taking advantage of something that was previously in the background that is only now coming to the foreground.

I think it'll come off that way if done for aesthetic reasons, but it won't if done for strategic reasons.

B) In the one-sentence setting players are looking to have an evening of fun. It may or may not be immersive, depending on the group's style.

I see nothing in your system to interfere with that.  My words of caution have largely been from an "immersion good, visible contrivance bad!" perspective.

I like a lot of your ideas, and I would totally play your game.  But I don't think I'd pick it if I was looking, first and foremost, for a deeply immersive experience.

As for where to physically write down notes, my group always has spare paper and I assumed that was a gaming staple. :) Of course, henna tattoos, sand paintings, or public art could work too.

It's all about mandalas, baby.

No, seriously, my point was that if you want to create a fun option for something a player can do, you might want to enhance the appeal by creating a sheet with a fun layout, or a section on the main character sheet, or some such.

[eruditus]

Another (largely separate) thing is trying to help a player feel as if they, themselves, have abilities that mimic the character's.  Now, I will be all over the game (a LARP, one presumes) that lets me feel that way about lifting a car.  But since, at the gaming table, we're mostly thinking and socializing, such things are often restricted to feeling smarter and more socially adept than we actually are.

I ran a game once where one of the protagonists was possessed and an uber-badass.  She went to grab another PC and I was standing behind the victim lifting him.  Granted this was a touchy-feely larp among friends so no one minded and the girl playing the protagonist was all jazzed that she completely felt like she was lifting him :)

Sorry, I wasn't tryint to derail, Its just a means to bridge that gap Physically as well as on paper.

[aaronil]

Er, wait, your Focus attribute (the thing you use for skill checks etc.) drops by one?

Actually, I meant the Focus Pool - which is different than the Focus attribute (the maximum number of points in the pool). As to whether you'll actually use attributes for skill checks (as in attribute+skill ranks as bonus to roll), I'm tending toward "no" because I want attributes to operate as the interface between player and character, not a bonus to a roll.

 

However, you replenish your attribute pools at the end of every game session.

If these are just points-that-buy-ability-uses, this is probably okay.  None of these abilities seem to be crucial enough to in-game success that players will just stop sessions prematurely to refresh pools.  On the other hand, if these are also attribute points, e.g. "how well I can focus", then I imagine awkward breaks would become routine:

Ugh! Really, your players would do that? I can't even imagine that happening with any of the groups I've played with!

on the contrary I'm considering three different systems: artwork-based, life-path based, and bidding based.

Artwork-based?  As someone who can draw, that sounds cool to me, but what about people who can't?

It's not about artistic talent, it's about expression. The basic chargen process is: Draw a picture of your character in 5 minutes! After that pass your picture to the player on your right, who can draw in an additional thing (or write something). This process repeats until the original character "sheets" get back to their owners. Then the player incorporates everything on their sheet into a pitch to the rest of the group. There's a bit more to it than that, but those are the basics.

Second, that the GM would answer all of the players questions without referencing the Perception of the character in question or calling for a Perception check. Of course, this requires a sharp GM who is not going to be tricked.

If you, as a player, think to ask a question, what's a GM gonna do, refuse to tell you what's right in front of you without a successful Perception check?  Usually, it's just a matter of an attentive player directing his character to "look closer" or "go over there and check it out".

Well, of course if it's right in front of them and clearly observable I'm not going to conceal that. However, it's possible for characters with low perception to overlook concealed or seemingly unimportant things no matter how indepth a description the player gives (usually benefiting from meta-game knowledge) of searching the fireplace or what have you. It's not necessarily about one player being more attentive than another (though I agree that attentiveness should be its own reward), it's whether a player is RPing their character's faults (in this case a low Perception score) as well as their strengths.

True, you have given Player 2 the recourse of saying, "GM, help me out here.  My character has a high Perception."  I've just found that, in most games I've played, the GM's handouts to a stat-reliant player never measure up to the results obtained by players who are attentive, pro-active, and detail-oriented.

Hmm, could be I am more willing to handout more than you. I'd have to play in one of your games to be sure. Hopefully I'll get to playtest these ideas soon and I'll definitely report back whether this is a problem.

Also, you assume a competitive stance between Player 1 and Player 2; what if Player 1 used his great memory to help Player 2 instead of hoarding it to himself?

If that was the case, would either of them need your mechanics?

Actually, cooperation is built into the mechanics, it just regulates how much cooperation there can be given the circumstances. Players have numerical advantage over a single GM so these mechanics actually prevent players from giving ideas to a player whose character has no communication from and is separated from the group.

2) Player 1, who would otherwise have been invested in paying attention and asking the GM smart questions, buys a high Perception score and proceeds to play passively, doing what he feels like, confident that he has a rewind-and-do-over button.

Well, I very much doubt a player would do this.

Same effectiveness, less effort?  All but the most story- and immersion-centric players would do this.  That is, if not for your finite-resource-expenditure system.

I guess I game with story-centric players then. :)

So, wait, if the Narrator hadn't planned on a chandelier being present, a player can make one be present by spending a Perception point?  That is absurdly powerful for players with a good sense of physical strategy.

I wouldn't say absurdly powerful. As you said: the character is right there. The GM, by necessity, doesn't describe every detail. In a more narrative game this would be summed up as a simple rule: "Assume that whatever a player says is truth. Take it at face value and move on from there." Of course, a smart Narrator can spin an over-presumptuous idea for all kinds of mischief.

If there's an out-in-the-open agreement that super-convenient player setting contributions will be countered by super-inconvenient GM arbitration, and everyone likes that, great.

I think that's the agreement that needs to happen before any RPG - trust needs to be established between GM and player, especially when narrative control is no longer monopolized by the GM. In your examples, the GM had no reason to ruin the player's attempt just because it avoided one encounter - that seems like GM abuse of this system. Normally in a game the player might ask the GM "Hey, is there a chandelier there?" If the GM anticipates the player "ruining" the GM's plans with the chandelier, the GM would respond, "Sorry nope." The kind of game I'm composing these rules for is one in which the GM must be supremely flexible and willing to adapt to player improvisation. In other words, these rules won't work for a game that requires rail-roading.

It also shatters any illusion that the gameworld exists in its own right independently of the players' gaming.

Well, only if it's severely abused. Consider two scenarios: A) a highly detailed immersive setting, and (B) a last minute game with a one sentence setting hook.
A) In the highly immersive setting players have presumably immersed themselves in it. They know the theme, the technology level, their character's relationships, the various faiths and so forth. I don't see a player in such a setting saying misusing this ability.

Okay, you have more faith in players resisting the urge to use every method they can to gain an advantage than I do.  :)

Heh. I guess I do. :)

I like a lot of your ideas, and I would totally play your game.  But I don't think I'd pick it if I was looking, first and foremost, for a deeply immersive experience.

Thanks David. I see your point, and you articulated it very well. I agree that these rules could hamper immersion.

It's all about mandalas, baby.

No, seriously, my point was that if you want to create a fun option for something a player can do, you might want to enhance the appeal by creating a sheet with a fun layout, or a section on the main character sheet, or some such.

I really like the idea of a mandala-esque "character journal" as part of the sheet. Thanks for the inspiration David!

[aaronil]

Sorry, I wasn't tryint to derail, Its just a means to bridge that gap Physically as well as on paper.

Wow, Eruditus, you just described a game in which the player feels physically more powerful than they actually are!
Of course, that would be unusual for a tabletop RPG, but you've definitely got my imagination running.

[David Berg]

Aaron-

I think we understand each other.  It seems to me that my comments on immersion and system-abuse have gone as far as they should.  If you want further feedback on those topics, let me know.

Draw a picture of your character in 5 minutes! After that pass your picture to the player on your right, who can draw in an additional thing (or write something). This process repeats until the original character "sheets" get back to their owners. Then the player incorporates everything on their sheet into a pitch to the rest of the group. There's a bit more to it than that, but those are the basics.

I'm a big fan of group character-creation, where the attempt is to ensure that every character is fun, not only for the person playing it, but for everyone else at the table.  Your idea sounds like a pretty novel and enjoyable way to try that.  I'd be curious to see how well it worked.  I'd guess that success would depend in part on whatever structures/guidelines/suggestions/helpful hints you include in the process.  That may be a topic for another time (or another thread)... but if you feel like getting into it, I'd be happy to discuss it.

-David