[TriPent] Some ideas needed

[Qi Chin]

Hi there. This is my very first venture into the Forge, about which I've heard so much. Since this is not an introduction forum (I haven't seen one on here), I'll just go straight to the topic.

Recently I've started working on my universal system TriPent. The (revised) preversion of the rules is here (don't worry, it's not very long), and the character sheet here. It is a quick and simple system with few rules, which can be enhanced and adapted very easily (or at least that's my goal).

What my problem is that I don't know what to do with the weapon statistics. I've shown the very first version to others, and weapon statistics seems to be too complex. I agree, but for now I don't know what to do with them. Every weapon will have a damage value to show it's power (and the number is needed in the rules), but that's where I'm stuck. I don't know whether I should put in weapon mods at all, and if yes, which ones to put in, same or different ones for melee and ranged...

Any suggestions?

Qi

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hi, and welcome to the Forge. Let's characterize Tripent a bit:
- Obviously this is working with the same approach games like Fudge and Tristat take: streamlined modeling of in-game reality. The idea is that with some simple tools of task resolution the GM can negotiate and improvise suitable solutions to all situations. It's important that the game is simple and doesn't come in the way of actually roleplaying. Tell me if I'm wrong with this characterization.
- The abilities are rather abstract. I know it's fun and satisfying to cram things into symmetric patterns, but being more specific and willing to cut corners while doing it makes the game easier to understand. As it is, the abilities can hardly be understood without continuously looking at the list of definitions.
- Check out The Shadow of Yesterday (which should be available for free, too, although I can't seem to find it on Clinton's remodeled site) if you already haven't. He uses the same idea of pools as discretionary resources pretty well. Which brings me to a telling point: what does it tell about your game that characters refill their pools by sleeping? For comparison, in Clinton's game you have these special refill-scenes that encourage PCs to interact with NPCs to fill their pools. Like, going out drinking with your buddies refills your Vigor, and so on.
- Having separate combat rules is a typical phenomenon in this kind of generic systems. After reading through a slew of them I'm of the mind that this occurs not so much because of tradition per se, but because the designer isn't really comfortable with the tools provided by his basic resolution system. If the basic resolution really did it's job, you wouldn't need a separate combat system, perhaps. One of the more advanced solutions in this line of design lately has been to change "combat system" into a "complex situation system" that doesn't have anything in particular to do with combat, and can be used to resolve any intense, detailed situations. Good examples of the approach are Heroquest and the aforementioned TSOY. For less explicit but as efficient takes, check out The Mountain Witch and Sorcerer.
- Your skill list is plain weird. "Use rope" and "Perception" are on the same list? Well, whatever. The system doesn't really need a skill list, so you might confuse the reader by including one.

Now, answer to your question: "Every weapon is different" is hogwash in this kind of design context. In the previous chapter you just defined how the keen nose of the wolf is equal or superior to human eyes in dark conditions, allowing the wolf a bonus die in the perception category. I fail to see why having a sword against dagger, a shotgun against a derringer or a knife against bare fists would be any different. Especially as you go on to say that the weapon statistics can (quite correctly) change according to situation anyway.

From a quick read-through it seems to me that the main reason to have those weapon statistics is so you can give out multiple bonus dice for having the correct kind of weapon for the situation. I'm skeptical as to why you should, if this is going to be the kind of cinematic action system this type of game usually strives for. If something, I'd give more weight to the tactical considerations of movement and visibility than the exact kind of meatcleaver the character happens to swing. While weapons have long held a special fetisistic place in the heart of the nerdy gamer boy, this is hardly a reason to over-emphasize something that's fundamentally not so interesting, after all.

But still, if you want to give several bonus dice for weapons, then do it the same way you're doing other categories: just compare the weapons for several attributes on the run during the game, same way you compare visibility conditions, position and mobility. (That list, by the way, reminds me of the discussions on Anyway last spring about generic tactical considerations in a firefight. Good reading, that.)

So that's that. Let's go back to the overall design and talk about it a bit, shall we? I like the basic die mechanic, very business-like. And letting the player use pool points to invest in rolls they find important is good, too. But other than that, what's the point here? We get a point-based character generation, a task resolution system and a combat system, but hardly anything else. What kind of gaming do you picture for this system? Specifically, how do you make characters mesh into a setting, how do you introduce situations for them, and how do you resolve events in the larger sense?

The above questions are pretty large, so if you don't want to get into those, that's cool. But if you do, I'd like to hear some more about your gaming background, first. What games have you played, how long, what was your best gaming experience, that kind of thing. You could even write an actual play post on the appropriate forum, if you want. That way we have some idea of where to start the discussion.

[Qi Chin]

Whoa, so much "professionalism", if that's the right word.
I'll start with a bit of my RPG history, as this will lead to my answers to TriPent. I've started 8 years ago with AD&D, and have promptly introduced all my friends to this type of game, playing it regularily for several years. After some time, I tried out The Black Eye (Das Schwarze Auge), a German RPG, then discovered D&D 3.x. In between I've always looked at free RPGs such as Liquid, and Fudge, and only recently started looking at the more praised RPGs like TSOY.
The way I design is usually just to get some ideas down first, then presenting them to a friend, who then asks me many gritty questions about whatever catches his eye. This way, I get an outsider's view, and he helps me find any unclear parts in my game.
Which is why your questions really make me think about TriPent. It's not the first game I have created, but it's the first I am truly happy with as it stands. All other games always had their odd bits that didn't suit me, but to which I couldn't find any solutions.

Your characterization of TriPent is actually pretty much correct. I wanted simple rules which are fast to understand and fast to use in order to have the "system" aspect of the game step back a bit. However, at the same time I wanted individual groups to be able to easily customize TriPent to their liking by adding any additional houserules they want without having to twist the base system.

One of the inspirations for this system came from a thread on another forum, where someone discussed the design of a character sheet. Something pretty untouched yet was using diagrams instead of boxes for numbers to represent different levels or directions of training. This is where the pentragrams come from. I chose these for two reasons: 5 is a prime number, and prime numbers tend to strike the human brain stronger than the other, in lieu of a better way of saying this. 2, 3, 5, 7 stand out more than 4, 6, 8, and the like. Another reason was to have enough stats for the neighboring stats prerequisite when advancing a single stat further than first level. 6 are definetly too much (that would be 18 stats...), but 4 seemed to be too few.
Of course, the individual stats can be renamed to be clearer, or even slightly redefined.

I have looked over TSOY, but since I have the un-layouted form, it was a bit of a pain to read it thoroughly, so I didn't fully check out all the rules yet. I'll have to do that. One thing I don't understand, though: What do you mean with what it tells about my game that chars refill their pools by sleeping?

About the combat rules: They were even more distinct, with a seperate combat pool and no stats to check for, only skills (which are optional). In short, they were a mess. What I did was try to incorporate all three pools into combat so that no single pool will dominate over the others due to its importance in combat. I'm still trying to meld "normal" checks and combat rules together, such as by applying advantages outside of combat (which was actually suggested, but I must have forgotten...).

The skill list was created in ten minutes, again just to have something standing there to be molded. But then again, skills are an optional rule, and if a group wants, they can create their very own skill list. I was just brainstorming on what "universal" skills there might be to have an idea.

The rules about weapons mods as they are in the rules is not what I want it to be like. That's the only part I left completely unrevised to show what I was doing.
I think I might have missed the point of my system by adding weapon mods, and by making them so complex. I was mostly adapting an idea I saw on this other forum, with the idea of making weapons different from one another. Turns out I probably overdid it. At the time of writing I was still deciding whether to give one bonus die as a "better weapon" advantage, or to give out multiple bonus dice for much better weapons. I think that when I put advantages into the normal checks, I'll put up a "tools" category, which will then encompass weapons.


On the topic of the point of the system, I'm not quite sure what to answer. It's a universal system that's supposed to be suitable to any setting and that can be adapted and enhanced easily. And to be honest, I haven't given those things much thought as of yet. I first had a setting and a ruleset, but kept changing it over time, making it simpler as I went, until I got an epiphany and wrote TriPent. I liked the idea so much and had come to a point where my system got so simple, I started creating it with the outlook of it becoming a universal system. Other than that, there isn't much more.

Qi

[Eero Tuovinen]

Great answers, and very useful in understanding the project. Let me comment on some particulars...

Your characterization of TriPent is actually pretty much correct. I wanted simple rules which are fast to understand and fast to use in order to have the "system" aspect of the game step back a bit. However, at the same time I wanted individual groups to be able to easily customize TriPent to their liking by adding any additional houserules they want without having to twist the base system.

Man oh man, this is pretty much verbatim what the Fudge author says about his system. And I think your game does work in this regard quite admirably, nothing wrong in that. I'm just curious... don't you think that this has been done before? I mean, don't games like Fudge and Tri-stat - to name but two this reminds me of - do this kind of thing pretty well already? Or TSOY for that matter, even if it approaches the job just a bit differently.

Unless I mistake my guess, your primary motivation in creating TriPent has been practical, to have a system you can use yourself for GMing all kinds of various adventures. At least that was the case when I fiddled with similar generic, streamlined designs four or five years back. Just going on my own experiences, I found that the ultimate reward in making this kind of system was in the act of building itself, and I didn't end up using the rules for anything much in the end. That's probably because the gut feeling guiding the work is at least partially flawed - you'd think that it would be great to have a very balanced, value-neutral system for generic adventuring, but at least I got bored with it rather quickly. The system simply did nil for actually supporting play, it just sat there waiting for a player to start pedalling. There wasn't enough... suggestion in the system, it had no internal drive to go anywhere. I've had similar experiences with Fudge and Tristat since then, and TriPent seems a bit like that, too.

Anyway, that's just speculation. I don't mean to patronize, for all I know you have a great game going on here, and you definitely should continue working on it as long as it interests you.

One of the inspirations for this system came from a thread on another forum, where someone discussed the design of a character sheet. Something pretty untouched yet was using diagrams instead of boxes for numbers to represent different levels or directions of training. This is where the pentragrams come from. I chose these for two reasons: 5 is a prime number, and prime numbers tend to strike the human brain stronger than the other, in lieu of a better way of saying this. 2, 3, 5, 7 stand out more than 4, 6, 8, and the like. Another reason was to have enough stats for the neighboring stats prerequisite when advancing a single stat further than first level. 6 are definetly too much (that would be 18 stats...), but 4 seemed to be too few.

This part was definitely interesting as a flavor element, in lack of better term. I did something similar in 2004 IGC myself, except I built a pyramid out of the skills instead of a loop. In general, having visual elements in the game is a good way to up the rate of abstraction without losing the audience.

What I was thinking, however, was that as written the limitation of having to progress neighboring attributes at roughly the same pace is a tad weak. How fast do characters progress? With three separate pentagrams there's too much freedom for the limitation to be really felt. I suggest that dropping two of them and playing with only one might give the feature a better focus. (Whether it's something that should be focused on is another story.)

I have looked over TSOY, but since I have the un-layouted form, it was a bit of a pain to read it thoroughly, so I didn't fully check out all the rules yet. I'll have to do that. One thing I don't understand, though: What do you mean with what it tells about my game that chars refill their pools by sleeping?

Well, what you have here is a classical case of a player resource, in the form of those pools. Players can use them to further their aims, deciding for themselves how to spend the pool. That part is good, and it tells plenty about the game when you look at the ways a player can use a resource. In D&D, for example, your main resources are the spell slots and magic items, which are all meant for killing monsters... ergo, the game is about killing monsters.

But setting that aside, the other thing you have to be on the lookout for resource-wise is how those resources get replenished! Let's take TSOY for an example: TSOY is supposed to be a game about passionate humans living lives of high adventure. The high adventure part is where pools are spent in all manner of things, but how are the pools replenished? By committing in human interaction with other characters, PC or NPC. You get vigor by wrestling or carousing and instinct by going on a date, for example. The end result? TSOY play swings between action scenes and quiet character development scenes. The latter frequently feed into new plots that further the action later on.

TSOY has what we could call a "resource cycle", because both gaining and spending resources is connected into the overall intent of the rules system. D&D is the same way: rest in the dungeon is a tactical commodity, so replenishing those spells, hitpoints and limited-use abilities depends on securing the perimeter or reaching the objective in a timely manner. You spend resources for the chance to replenish, in other words.

What I meant with the sleep thing was this: either you haven't thought your resource cycle through, or you expect to make rest a limited commodity. I suspect it's a bit of both, actually: what you'd like to see is players limiting their use of the pools in full awareness of how the GM won't let them rest up later, so spending that pool actually matters for later. Meanwhile I imagine that you made sleep the replenishing factor out of some generic strive for realism, perhaps. However: I have a difficulty imagining that TriPent is intended to work on a similar tightly run sleep schedule D&D does, so perhaps you should rethink the resource cycle? Or don't you think it unfair that a character engrossed in weeks-long diplomatic negotiations gets several pool refreshments while the situation develops, while another character participating in a battle of equal importance doesn't? In D&D it works because the game assumes that all important conflicts are at most hours long, but the same assumption seems strange here.

About the combat rules: They were even more distinct, with a seperate combat pool and no stats to check for, only skills (which are optional). In short, they were a mess. What I did was try to incorporate all three pools into combat so that no single pool will dominate over the others due to its importance in combat. I'm still trying to meld "normal" checks and combat rules together, such as by applying advantages outside of combat (which was actually suggested, but I must have forgotten...).

I like that thinking. Again, compare TSOY: the game goes to a lot of pain to make all the pools equal and equally useful. TSOY has a pretty balanced view on the place of combat in human drama, though, so it doesn't necessarily need to achieve this result by making everything combat-applicable (although you can build an efficient combat character in that game out of any of the pools). Another angle to look at when checking out TSOY, perhaps.

Extending the idea of advantages outside combat is a good idea. Or rather, perhaps you should think seriously about what combat really is in your game. Is it really a philosophically separate mode of existence, as the rules seem to suggest? I've seen games similar to TriPent without any combat system at all, and yet others that bunch combat together with other similar activities. Could you run a "combat" where the participants fight not with guns and swords, but with words and gestures, trying to convince each other on the arena of social battle? Or scale the system, and use the combat rules for moving armies around? That's the kind of flexibility you can expect in modern games, having a separate combat system seems a bit old-school if you don't have a special reason to have one. TSOY is again instructive (I know I'm constantly referring to the one game, but it just happens to be an useful comparison) in this regard with it's Bringing Down the Pain rules, usable for anything from a battle to a cooking competition.

On the topic of the point of the system, I'm not quite sure what to answer. It's a universal system that's supposed to be suitable to any setting and that can be adapted and enhanced easily. And to be honest, I haven't given those things much thought as of yet. I first had a setting and a ruleset, but kept changing it over time, making it simpler as I went, until I got an epiphany and wrote TriPent. I liked the idea so much and had come to a point where my system got so simple, I started creating it with the outlook of it becoming a universal system. Other than that, there isn't much more.

That's pretty good. What kind of gaming situations do you imagine for the system? Are there other games you're replacing in your own repertoire with TriPent?

Again, without wanting to sound patronizing, the games that truly capture imagination tend to be built with some pretty definite intent. I wouldn't want to play TriPent as it stands, for instance, because what I see is a bunch of pretty polished mechanics with little overview on how they work together and help the players to play together. This is pretty common for beginning designers, I made several systems with similar lack of perspective just to get a handle on the tools of the trade. The feel of design tends to be rather different, however, when you have a more elaborate vision for what you're trying to do.

[Doug Ruff]

Hi Qi,

Eero's already said a lot, so I'll try not to repeat his very good advice.

First up, I like the basic system (rolling dice for successes, spending additional 'pool' points if necessary). However, I think the character creation system needs a rethink.

To illustrate, lets take 3 imaginary new players, Bob, Dave and Julie.

Bob wants to be a streetwise thief, and isn't interested in being good outside of his chosen profession. He takes his 30 points, and splits them between Athletics, Charisma, Perception, Unarmed Combat, Sleight of Hand, Streetwisdom and Stealth - giving him a rating of 4 or 5 in each skill. In other words, Bob's playing a ninja.

Dave wants to be a generalist, so he spends his 30 points on stats, and buys one point of every single stat.

Julie decides that she wants to be good at stuff she is passionate about, so she spends her 30 points by dropping 10 into each pool.

In play, Bob will steam through any conflict that fits his specialities, and will actively push play in the direction that alows him to use them. Julie will shine at everything (including Bob's specialities, which will probably upset Bob) until she runs out of pool, at which point she will want to rest. Dave may as well go out and buy the pizza, he's not going to have anything to do all game.

This is a deliberately extreme example, but it illustrates a few points. Skills have far more value for their cost than stats (look at Charisma vs Personality, for an example), and they also help the GM to know what the player wants to do. Pool is far mor flexible than stats, and also allows the player to tell the GM in game what is important to them - if Julie isn't spending pool, she's not engaged. Stats have little mechanical value, and little informational value.

My answer to this would be to drop the stats completely, and to allow 'skills' that convey the same information as a stat (example: Strength - 3 as a skill). I think you're already going there with some of the skills (see Charisma, Perception). As they stand right now, stats are dead weight in an otherwise elegant system.

If you really want to keep stats, you need to find some way of guiding player choice towards more balanced characters, and also make stats either cheaper, or more widely applicable, or both.

Anyway, I'm late for work! Hope this is of some use, and I'll be looking forward to reading more about your game when I'm next online.

Regards,

Doug

[Qi Chin]

I've been giving my system a lot of thought, and I'm seeing if I can come up with some sort of element to make it "ungeneric". I guess that a lot does depend on setting, and I am rewriting it to fit these rules. I think I'll step away from the universal system idea, and instead write TriPent just for my setting.
This way, I'll probably be able to then answer some of the questions regarding typical sessions, resource cycle, and so on.

Doug, I get your point, but I think you might have slightly misunderstood the skill system. Skills, like in True20, are binary. You either have them, or you don't. There's no ranks in skills, every skill gives you 2 extra dice.
But yes, I'll have to figure out the math and run tests.

Qi

[Doug Ruff]

Yes, my bad, I missed that about skills. As you're already looking into this, I won't comment further on it - and I'l be interested to see anything setting specific you want to show us.

Regards,

Doug

[Qi Chin]

Alright, I went over the math again, and as far as I can see, it works out pretty well. I'll have to make the pools a bit better or cheaper, though.
Bob would have 30 skills (if he indeed only bought skills), which means that at 30 areas of expertise, he will - statistically - have a 81.25% chance of succeeding any action with a difficulty of 2.
Dave would have a 75% chance of succeeding any action with a difficulty of 2.
Julie would have a 75% chance of succeeding at thirty actions with a difficulty of 2, after that, a 50% chance at any action.

As 2 is the base difficulty, it works well as a comparison. As the difficulty goes up, say, to 3, it looks like this:
Bob would then have a 50% chance of succeeding on any action related to one of his skills.
Dave would have a 31.25% chance of succeeding at any action.
Julie would have a 50% chance of succeeding at six actions, after that, a 12.5% chance of succeeding at any action.

So Julie pretty much gets screwed over, which means that I'll have to either make the ratio of CP to pool points better, or restrict the number of stats/skills you can buy at character creation. Or both.


The setting is called shadowmancer. I'll post the intro of the document about it.

A world that no longer believes, no longer remembers. A world, ignorant of its own truth and oblivious to reality. A world, keeping up an illusion held up for centuries to protect themselves, protect their frail minds against things it deems incomprehensible.
A "normal" world.
But what lies beneath, what nobody sees, nobody wants to see, is not even a secret. It's the truth told as a lie. It's what everybody can imagine, but not imagine as the reality. It's the world of shadows.
Mysteries shroud this world like a dark veil, forever encasing it and preventing anyone unwilling to see into it to do so. But not all are so fragile. Not all are so gullible. Not all are so caught up with their illusion of how the world should be, an illusion so thin that a single connection between these "worlds" can shatter it forever. Not all are simply weak people who cannot face the truth.
These are the Shadowmancers.
Men and women who know of the truth of the world of shadows, yet don't know all it's facets. Men and women who can call shadows to their aid, manipulate them, and use them for their cause. Whatever that cause may be.
The truth is that the world is full of mysteries, phenomena, strange happenings, inexplicable events. Most people don't notice them, they are part of daydreams and weird imaginings, but never part of reality. The shadowmancer knows better.
The world of shadows is a wondrous place, full of unsolved puzzles to be discovered, with new and otherworldly experiences to be made. And a world of danger.
The beings of the shadow carry many names. Demons, monsters, ghosts, beasts. They live in their world, undetected by everyone else, unbothered by them. And they don't like intruders. Such as shadowmancers.
The beings have different motivations for hating people who disturb their world, but anyone bold enough to delve deeply into the world of shadows will have to prepare themselves against the beings. Prepare, and be ready when the time comes.
Or they might never return from their trip.
It takes courage and will to become and stay a shadowmancer. The dangers posed by the beings and the mysteries themselves are great. But will an unforgettable experience, a whole new world right within our own, scare you away?

Didn't think so.
Welcome, shadowmancer.

It's basically a mystery setting around the year 1985. Modern enough to not be too old, but not yet having all the high-tech stuff we enjoy today.
The players play shadowmancers, people gifted with the ability to, within limits, manipulate shadows. I'm thinking about putting in different shadow talents for players to choose. They then try to find and solve the mysteries of this hidden world, driven by curiosity, the idea of getting some benefit from one of the solved mysteries, sense of adventure, or whatever.
What do you guys think?

Qi

[Eero Tuovinen]

Of probabilities: don't worry about that part a whit, now. That's so out there at this point, and the probabilities are pretty irrelevant compared to psych factors at this scale, anyway. You have better things to worry about, surely.

There is something in Shadowmancer that intrigues YOU, right? Care to tell us more about it? I'm asking because what you've given us is a glimpse of the basic color. It's something roleplayers develop all kinds of hang-ups about ("I only play fantasy games" or whatever), but ultimately that broad setting color is a side-issue. What is important is that the setting allows situations to emerge, such situations that are of interest to you as a player. I'll give some random examples of what you could be about here:
- By setting the game to 1985 we get to analyze and judge our current history from a detached, urban fantasy point of view. The setting allows us to play with all kinds of what-if scenarios, and have adventures tied to the political events of the day.
- The game will be all about deconstructing the punk and goth phenomenons (and what roleplaying considers "cool" by extension!) via determinate grinding of the stylistic issues of the day.
- Defining player characters with the comparatively narrow schtick of "controlling shadows" allows you to drive home some visual aesthetics, while focusing the game to something other than "cool powers". (This is what games like The Mountain Witch and Sorcerer do, to a degree; while roleplayers won't touch it with a ten-foot pole if it doesn't have superpowers or at least a big sword, they're relatively happy to settle on everybody having the same superpowers...)

Might be that none of the above is even close, I don't know. You tell us. Can't really discuss the setting without having some sense of what you hope to achieve with it.

[Qi Chin]

What intrigues me personally is the basis: A mystery setting. But to talk about it a big more...

I chose the year 1985 because it is only a mere 20 years back. It is modern enough to be recognizeable, with most of the technology we have established (besides internet and computers as we know then now). If I would have chosen something like the 50's or even further back, other events, which are then 'basic history', will completely overrule the kind of everyday modern feel I want. However, for a lot of younger gamers (me included), 1985 is detached enough so that Shadowmancer does not simply become a modern fantasy a la 'Urban Arcana'.

The game is much more about almost normal people trying to uncover mysteries, just like explorers, than playing around with shadow powers. The difference is that instead of searching in jungles or digging in desert sand, or what have you, they are looking for them in the 'hidden' world, the part of the world which everyone else thinks belongs to the imaginations of fantasy novelists and children. It's where ghosts and demons and the like reside. They are sort of like the risk factor in going after the mysteries of the hidden world, because they don't like intruders. Normally people don't intrude, only occasionally stumble in by accident, but shadowmancers are fully aware of this part of reality, and then seek it out to explore.

What are such mysteries? Something as mundane as a haunted house can be, or something as elaborate as, say, the constant rumblings under the old abandoned city library in which and underground complex has been found.

I don't quite get what you mean with the punk and goth phenomena.

Qi

[Anders Larsen]

It is a good idea to try to find some concepts that you can use to structure you system around; this will make the actual game play much more interesting and focused. But I will ask you to forget about the actual setting right now, and think more about what role-play experience you want out of this game.

Try to answer the following question:

* What type of stories do you want to tell with this game (how does the story evolve through the game)?

* What is the feeling of the game?

* What are the characters journeys (how do they evolve through the story)?

* What will be the typical conflicts the characters faces, and what resources do they have to resolve these conflicts?

The questions may be a bit abstract, but try to answer them anyway, and try to be specific.

- Anders

[Qi Chin]

* What type of stories do you want to tell with this game (how does the story evolve through the game)?

The stories I want to tell are sort of like 'The Mummy' meets Sherlock Holmes meets 'National Treasure'. So stories which start out with a general and supernatural mystery, which catches the characters' curiosity, and they attempt to solve it step by step, going from clue to clue, while at the same time defending themselves against the creatures of shadow, who don't like the characters sniffing around their territory.
I'm not imagining detective stories in their base sense, meaning some murder, and the characters find the murderer, but rather something bigger like a monster house or the master clock of time hidden under the world tree. It would involve the characters just striking out and looking for a clue, and when they've found one, figuring it out and following it to the next clue, until they get to the solution. Along the way they can and will have to use different methods, such as fighting their way past the creatures, some research and talking to people, or sneaking around.

* What is the feeling of the game?

The feeling is that the characters are small, and are following something really profound. Sort of like astronomy, where humans are just dinky little things in a tiny spot in the big endless universe, which holds so many secrets. And yet we still go out and try to figure them out. Well, maybe not that big, and not every mystery is a holy grail, but it's something out there that nobody can (yet) understand, and just trying to get behind the answer is a big drive.

* What are the characters journeys (how do they evolve through the story)?

Well, the characters are ideally people who have been recently exposed to the world of shadows, either by only discovering their powers, or having their powers explained by more experienced shadowmancers. Of course many then just cope with daily life as usual, either using or shunning their powers. But PCs are the kind who have just discovered the world's biggest theme park, and it's so big that they can't see the other end from the entrance even with a powerful telescope. So they start to look around, find others who are in the same situation, and then venture out. They discover the many little hidden things this new world holds, its mysteries and its dangers. Instead of explorers wandering around in jungles to find lost Maya temples, they wander around the world of shadows looking for unsolved mysteries. And as they continue, they find out more and more about this whole new world, their powers, and so on.

* What will be the typical conflicts the characters faces, and what resources do they have to resolve these conflicts?

One type of conflict is of course fending against the creatures of shadow. These creatures are not evil, but they just don't like to be disturbed, and shadowmancers thumping through their world solving mysteries are pretty disturbing. So they try to get rid of them, either by violence, or by persuasion, or manipulation. Typical fights can occur, or keeping a true heart and trusting your friends to avoid getting your mind controlled also help.
Another conflict is of course finding, reaching, and deciphering clues of mysteries. Think 'National Treasure' a bit more mystical. Instead of reciting historical facts, characters have to, based on the nature of the clue, search around the world of shadows, ask experts, solve riddles, get past some guardian, use their powers to accomplish a task, or whatever else people who have more time can come up with ;)
Resources vary. A good old shotgun can help against pesty critters, and a sharp mind can help with riddles.

I hope this gives a more specific overview. And the questions really helped me to try and think about some specific aspects of my setting.

Qi

[Anders Larsen]

This is some very interesting answers. You describe very well how you want your game to work, and by that, what you system need to support/motivate.

I will try to give some "insightful" feedback to your answers, but I need some time to analyse them. Until then, I have two more question:

* What kind of relationships are there between the Shadowmancers? How are they organised? Do they have some kind of moral structure?

* Way do the Shadowmancers need to investigate these mysteries? What drives them?

- Anders

[Qi Chin]

I just noticed I've accidentally turned my entire post into a quote... Ah well.

* What kind of relationships are there between the Shadowmancers? How are they organised? Do they have some kind of moral structure?

First and foremost, shadowmancers are just people. The only thing that makes them different from others is their ability to control shadows. Sort of like the mutants in X-Men. They have all the width of emotions and social relationships that humans have.
So there is no special relationship between shadowmancers beyond how normal people would interact. There is no big shadowmancer 'guild' of which every single shadowmancer is a member. Which doesn't mean that there aren't any organizations, however. Of course, some shadowmancers do group together, be it to explore the world of shadows (adventuring parties), or to help other shadowmancers get orientated with their powers, or to collect lore from the world of shadows. To refer to the X-Men example again, Xavier's School for the Gifted or Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants resemble such organizations in the X-Men universe.

* Way do the Shadowmancers need to investigate these mysteries? What drives them?

At the beginning, there need not be a 'why' past curiosity and the wish to explore. Like I said, not all shadowmancers go out and solve these mysteries. Many are just content to not touch the world of shadows and live on like everyone else. It's like a different possibility to experience the thrill of adventure, like going surfing during a hurricane or to hitch-hike accross Europe. It's all not without dangers, but eager and enthusiastic people find the risks worth the reward. In the case of shadowmancers, this reward is learning about and getting to know the world of shadows. And the risks, of course, are mostly the creatures of shadow.
That is often the base motivator. Later on, when the shadowmancers have looked around a bit and have 'grown up', there could be things like missions from organizations, or places of big mystery causing trouble. Or some twist of fate that lands the party smack in the middle of some heated event in the world of shadows, and they have to try and escape.

I have to admit that I am partly making this up as I go, but I'm then molding these answers to fit the big sceme. Thanks for the questions, and if you don't mind, keep asking :D

Qi

[Anders Larsen]

I have a coble of suggestion for mechanics that support and/or motivate some of the concepts you describe. When I describe mechanics I will focus on the effect of these mechanics and not on exactly how they work, I hope that, in this way, it will be easier for you to integrate these ideas into your system.

I also have a number of new question to ask.

---

This game seem to be based around exploring the world of shadows and investigate mysteries found in this world. The problem is that exploring and investigation is hard to get to work properly in a rpg, because they do not have any build-in conflicts, so it is important to see these as a motor that will drive the character into conflicts.

So how to get this motor going? You need something that will drive or motivate the character to investigate and that the same time will get the character into trouble. It is properly a good idea to tie this into a reward mechanic, so the player get rewarded for putting his character into some weird situations.


This is roughly how I see the flow of the game:
Exploring the world of shadow -> finding a mystery -> investigate the mystery -> conflict with creatures of shadow -> solve the conflicts and the mystery.

I think the story should have an other side to it, a more personal side. Part of the game is about exploring a strange world and an other part is to dealing with relationships and personal problems. So the story will shift forth and back between these two sides.

Here I will be more specific about the mechanics, because it is something that have been talked about earlier in this tread, and that is pool refreshment. Instead of refilling the pools by resting, they could be refilled by hanging out and talking with other characters, and maybe by dealing with personal problems. This will make is so that the characters time to time have to break out of there great adventures and do something that affect them more on a personal level. This shift between great adventures and personal problem will make a more interesting story.


A personal conflict you seem to mention a coble of times is:
Exploring the great unknown <-> feeling small and insignificant.
Is this something that can lead to mental instabilities, like depressions? Maybe if the character tries to handle this new world on his own he risk getting so overwhelmed that he get insane.

Another personal conflict that is interesting to look at is: What happen to the character's relations to friends and family when he becomes a shadowmancer?


The character's journey is something like this:
* Starting when just introduced to the shadow world.
* Slowly being introduced to the dangers of this world.
* Learning the new power as they go.
* What is there ultimate goal?

Another journey the character will face is the internal: how do their personality change when they become shadowmancers, and what about when they begin to experience the world of shadows? Currently you do not have anything in your game that describe the character's personality - Is this something you want to have?

These journeys are important to understand when deciding on how the numbers (and other things) on the character sheet should change doing the game. In many cases this is tied into the reward mechanic: You can use the reward to make the numbers better.


Here are the categories of abilities a character seems to need in this game:
* Investigate
* Social interaction
* Sneak around
* Combat
* Solve riddles
* Research
* Mystical powers

It is not all of these abilities that are represented in the system. It is understandable you do not have "mystical powers" yet, but a thing like "sneak around" is not directly represented anywhere. Another thing is that these abilities are not represented equally; Combat is the only one that have a separate mechanic. But since this have been addressed earlier in the thread I will not go more into it here.

And about what resources the character have: What about personality, beliefs, relations etc.. Should it not be possible for the character to use these to help in a conflict?


I guess in the end there are more questions than answers in this post, but I hope this will help you a bit further. And if there are anything that are unclear (which there properly are) then please ask.

- Anders