Modify existing systems vs. creating new ones : any ideas ?

[Damakun]

Hello !

I have been lurking on this forum off and on for a while now, and have decided to get into the research/design phase for a CRPG. What I am asking about is the play mechanics, specifically (i.e. NOT the programming part)

I want to use/create a pen-and-paper system and use it as a tool to keep the game balanced and consistent, but I cannot find anything ready to use that meets my needs :

1) Quick resolution

2) Fairly rules light/open

3) Freedom from class hierarchy of any sort

4) Few, if any, assumptions made about the use of magic

The two systems that come the closest are GURPS and TriStat-dx. I already know I cannot use GURPS in a CRPG without paying/negotiating a licence fee. I cannot tell if TriStat has the same restrictions or not, especially given that Guardians of Order is going out of business

Now, I am asking if it would be better to modify TriStat, or create a new system from scratch. I would like to know, specifically, if anyone has had success running/creating a balanced game either way. Please note that balance and consistency are the two things I am motivated by. If I create a new system, I would not mind self-publishing/sharing, but the resulting rules would be used in an electronic, interactive product.

Also, if it helps :

1) I am a hobbyist/student

2) My previous pen-and-paper roleplaying experience includes MechWarrior, FUDGE, Killer Bunnies (CCG), and Magic : The Gathering (CCG). I have *never* played D&D, and d20/Open Gaming/SRD is therefore quite foreign and almost opposite of what I am looking for.

3) I own GURPS 3e, and BESM, 2e, and have them on hand for reference. I also downloaded TriStat-dx PDF

4) Most free systems I have seen copy D&D or GURPS very poorly, are harder to understand, and do not meet my needs.

Thanks in advance for you time.

[Aussigamer]

I modified D&D3.5, modern, future and several others to my system.

You do have the feel of the start rules but in the end it is different.

It has been a long road and is still not complete.

So for me I think that modifing is not an easy out for making a new game.

1. I feel that the combat system is still as quick as D&D, only requiring one extra roll for body point hit, but makes up for that by removing the critical confirmation roll.

2. Hum not light, went the heavier road, but the actual combat is still quick and easy. I see that more detail can be used to enhance the gaming session, like a hit blowing off a limb or such.

3. yep dumped skill cross classing and basically allowed a build for a mage/ psionic in any class, as its feats based not class based

4. Don't really understand the point, I have used the D&D system of spells but removed caster level and other major changes.

Rick

I am playing Nexus with pen and paper in my play testing, and also using it as a PbP on line play test as well.

[Selene Tan]

Hi, Damakun, and welcome to the Forge!

It sounds like you're asking for a pencil-and-paper system to start developing the rules/procedures for a CRPG. Is this correct? I don't think your first two criteria fit very well with CRPGs. In a CRPG, you don't really have to worry about "quick resolution," since the computer can easily carry out calculations involving many factors that would bog down in pencil-and-paper play. Additionally, a "rules light" system is probably the last thing you want for a CRPG. Rules-light systems tend to rely on having the players make a lot of things up and extrapolate from the rules, rather than giving specific procedures for every contingency. This works really badly for a CRPG, where you have to program in every action that a player can take.

You might want to take a look at D&D/the d20 system, and then take a look at Neverwinter Nights. See how they converted the pencil-and-paper system into something that could be programmed. Yes, you might dislike the class and magic systems, but it's a really good example of conversion. (If you have the time/resources/inclination, you might also look at AD&D 1st or 2nd ed and the computer games based on those systems. Some of the computer games ended up using systems that were quite different!)

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a system for play with live people, I have a couple of suggestions. One is FATE, an adaptation of the FUDGE system optimized for telling stories. Another is The Shadow of Yesterday. (The document mentions the world called Near, but all the setting-specific stuff--including magic--is in another document.) These two games meet your criteria, but neither of them can be easily converted to a CRPG. Both of them are released under licenses that give you the right to adapt or kitbash them. (OGL for FATE, Creative Commons BY-NC-SA for TSOY.)

[Kensan_Oni]

CRPG? Are we talking Collectable Role Playing Game? Like, with cards and stuff?

Wow... now there's something. The only game I know that pulled it off, and for some bizzare reason found it's nitch market was Dragon Storm. It's pretty rules light, although at times, I think it's a bit restrictive on the GM.

(For a while, I was thinking of a game that was sold in mini-paperback books. YOu would need the core, and a book for each class that you wanted to play... but that idea eventually was tossed out at a bad idea. :D  :(  Oh... wait... White Wolf is doing that now... well, at least you get more material getting their books)

What is it you want to do with this game?

[Hans]

1) Quick resolution

2) Fairly rules light/open

3) Freedom from class hierarchy of any sort

4) Few, if any, assumptions made about the use of magic

Someone beat me to the punch on Fate and TSOY,

My personal favorite that I think meets your criteria is Donjon.  http://www.crngames.com/donjon/  It has "classes", but don't let that fool you, functionally the game is classless (taking D&D as an example of a game that uses classes) since each person makes up their own class in a very free form way, and is not limited by that "class" in any way after character creation. 

Also RISUS (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm) and the Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.htm).  Not played either game, but heard good things.

Also, check out the resource library here at the Forge.  There are an awful lot of free RPG's listed there, one of which might be good for you.

However, Selene's comment about computer RPG's is very good.  I would not try to implement any of the above into a CRPG unless there was a LOT of text based interaction during the actual game play between real people.  Any computer implementation of these games would, I think, reduce their fun level, not increase it, unless all the game did was provide a chat venue, character sheet database, and dice rolling capabilities.  I certainly couldn't see any of them being turned into a game with any solitaire playability.

Of all the above games, strangely I think Donjon might be the easiest to convert.  It would have to be limited in the sense of what facts can be stated, but the mechanic of every thing being measured in terms of dice means there is a common currency in the game.  Limiting the facts would, of course, make it NOT Donjon.  But I could see how maybe it could, with heavy modification, become a platform on which to build a fairly scripted single or multi-player RPG.

With regards to computer game conversions of pen and paper; Fallout was essentially a conversion of GURPS, which was quite enjoyable.

[contracycle]

I agree with the view that systems with few rules and a lot of interpretation will be very hard to implement.  For any pracitcal situation you would have to figure out how the programme should interpet these values, and thats basically the same as writing a complex rule based system.

[David Artman]

I'd like to hear some further qualifying statements, to better offer advice:
1) Is the game intended to emphasize exploration and tactical conflicts, or more political or strategic play?
2) Are you planning to implement in-game abilities as "clickable" special effects (like World of Warcraft) or as modifiers to common base abilities (like, say, Unreal)?
3) Are you doing turn-based or real time?
4) How important are the situations and setting to your basic concept or playstyle goals (i.e. are they primary, or is the "game engine" primary)?
5) Do you intend to support single player, multiplayer over impromptu networks (LAN, WAN, VPN), massive multiplayer, or some combination? How many players?
6) Do you intend for a game to play open-ended, or will the game typically play to an end game state or final resolution/encounter?
7) Will the game require a GM/admin, or will it use the game engine for all GM/admin duties (instantiation, resolution, rewards)?

That should do for now... but I will likely have follow-up questions based on the replies to those initial framing questions.

HTH;
David

[Damakun]

Thanks all ! I will definitely investigate the links and possibilities presented. I have indeed not totally thought out exactly how much "work" goes into a rules light system that I sort of took for granted.... The main thing, was to provide a consistent way of handling and resolving conflicts. It has occurred to me that I can still assign classes to the NPCs/monsters and manage them that way, while hiding that from the PCs so they are not overwhelmed/burdened with those details.

I'd like to hear some further qualifying statements, to better offer advice:
1) Is the game intended to emphasize exploration and tactical conflicts, or more political or strategic play?
2) Are you planning to implement in-game abilities as "clickable" special effects (like World of Warcraft) or as modifiers to common base abilities (like, say, Unreal)?
3) Are you doing turn-based or real time?
4) How important are the situations and setting to your basic concept or playstyle goals (i.e. are they primary, or is the "game engine" primary)?
5) Do you intend to support single player, multiplayer over impromptu networks (LAN, WAN, VPN), massive multiplayer, or some combination? How many players?
6) Do you intend for a game to play open-ended, or will the game typically play to an end game state or final resolution/encounter?
7) Will the game require a GM/admin, or will it use the game engine for all GM/admin duties (instantiation, resolution, rewards)?

1) The game involves some politicking and high court intrigue as part of the storyline, but actual play is more action and exploration oriented.  Turn-based tactics, while nice, do not quite fit my concept.

2) Special abilities will be implemented via special objects, skills, or wyverns.  In the setting, one must either a) train/study b) use a charmed/blessed/cursed object, or c) summon wyverns to use special abilities.  The main protagonist in the story is actually defined by her ability to summon wyverns, talk to dragons, and do other special things she simply cannot do without the wyverns....

3) Real-time. Although I will prototype using turns, just to make sure the system (or mods to the system) are working as I planned. I actually thought about using turn-based battles for the key enemies, but thought that switching back and forth would be disorienting..... I was concerned about the frequency of turn based battles in CRPGs, and what that often does to slow the pace of a game. I wanted a smoother flow to the game, and barring a turn based epiphany, real-time seems to be the only way to go.....

4) Situation and setting are very important... I realize that there is a fad to make universal RPG systems lately, but to be honest, I know the story (or stories) I would like to tell. The setting involves a high fantasy world where magic is fairly common - so common, in fact, that special training/education is not needed to *use* magic, only to learn how to use it better, or for certain powerful/ritualistic spells/groups of spells.  The only limit is the caster's ability to physically withstand the power of magic flowing through their bodies - in other words, it is a skill and not a pool of points or a class distinction. Other possible settings also include magic in one form or another in a fantasy context of some sort.

5) Single player has been my focus, although multiplayer of up to a small party of 4-6 probably would not be too far out of the question. Realistically speaking, an MMO is definitely out of my reach as a hobbyist.

6) The current story/setting will eventually lead to a final confrontation - I wanted to keep multiple paths open along the way, though. The concept involves collecting a set of items - or wyverns, actually - in any order to get to the final battle. Until the final parts, though, the gameplay should be fairly open. I am hoping to avoid the dreaded FedEx Quest syndrome whenever possible, thereby allowing fairly free movement, while gently nudging the PCs along a path.....

7) The game engine will do all the referee duties.

My goal is to create or modify a system, such that the setting can be realized, balanced, and maintained easily. Once I have a solid set of rules, I feel the goal will have been accomplished.

Again, thanks for all of your input, and let me know if I can clarify anything further.

[Damakun]

CRPG? Are we talking Collectable Role Playing Game? Like, with cards and stuff?

No, Computer role-playing game. Although Card Games (CCG/TCG) do seem cool. Many forum posts/sites on the subject only mention the expense, and not the design considerations, as if electronic equivalents are not possible. But for the project at hand, no cards. I may ask about them specifically in another post at another time though.....

[metaltoad]

At the risk of sounding redundant I have a d20 variant that I'm working on that I'd like to propose.  It's a rules system only (no world) but it is written to support the fantasy genre.  After I complete this one, I'll probably start on a modern variant.

http://www.metaltoad.com/rpg/

I think the rules are pretty good, but some might say I am biased... :-P

[Callan S.]

Hi, welcome to the forge!

4) Situation and setting are very important... I realize that there is a fad to make universal RPG systems lately, but to be honest, I know the story (or stories) I would like to tell.

I think the difference between a novel and a game is that players of games engage a game to do something. How much do you imagine telling the story exclusively by yourself? If it's entirely, then that grates against the concept of a game and players engaging it to do something - in terms of telling the story, they will be doing nothing. It's a bit of a bait and switch "Come play - now sit quietly while I tell you a story".

You might not agree with 'doing nothing'. What I've observed in most computer games is that the designer gives some busy work to the player (kill monsters/level up) and thinks that is doing something. I'll suggest it isn't - I'll suggest that 'doing something' must involve what's important in the activity, and that important thing is what you the designer think is important (your story, in this case). Specifically, doing something will mean the players can influence that. The litmus test for whether they can do that is whether there is some real, provable way of them stopping you the designer from getting exactly the story you want.

This is likely athema (sp?) to computer game design, where the technical requirements of not allowing players to walk off the game map (cause it causes a crash) has made a practice of not letting anything happen outside of the story map either. So I'll pause for now, see what you think.

[baron samedi]

Hi,

I think games like CIVILIZATION or or resource-management games or even Sims might be more appropriate for a Narrative-style CRPG than say Neverwinter Nights et al., since the basic thing is having a randomized setting with players constructing something out of nothing and forging alliances/relations with others. I also remember ALPHA CENTAURI which was a good take with an overall ecological-colonization theme, with ideological wars behind this. There was a Herowars game back then I think that did that sort of thing too... Don't remember quite well though.

You might want to check this out if you want to do something down the Narrative-style road, though from what I read you're essentially in a Gamist perspective, so you might not be looking at the systems to best fit your needs. I suggest first thinking "What will this game be about" and then try to fit mechanics that will do just that.

Good luck!

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Damakun,

Designing software to allow single-user, freeform role-playing is extremely difficult. On the market, there are some very sophisticated engines that emulate real-world physics and have enought artificial-intelligence to give the impression of interaction. You may want to research various RPG engines, MUDs and MMORPG systems before attempting to create your own. The wheel has been imagined, designed, built, tested and rolled. There is no need to create something like that from scratch unless your RPG is completely different.

Also, developing stats, mechanics and rules isn't a true test of your creativity. Tell a story about the heroes in your world from a first-person perspective. That would be an example of what you can deliver to your target audience. If you want a true computer RPG then you will need to hide most of the mechanics and formulae. Focus on what the player can do in the world you've created. From an RPG view, I'm more interested in your story about wyverns.

However, I'm not a power-gamer. I'm not interested in the stats and minutiae of the system. I like stories. Others care more about the numbers and how to max them. Definitely research your target audience.

Good luck,

Troy

[Damakun]

Hello all !

Thanks for taking the time to help me out with this process. I must do more research, obviously. The rules-light systems I thought I wanted to use are very much difficult to use in a computer RPG setting. Although Fate, The Pool, and others I have looked into over the weekend are good for live pen-and-paper, I did take for granted exactly how much work the human mind does in making those systems work well. I think TriStat is probably the lightest thing, as far as rules go, that will actually work for my purposes.

I think TroyLovesRPG made an interesting point. It seems the issue is not necessarily to use one mechanic over another, but to hide them from the player. Levelling up is another issue althogether different, but I think there is a way to strike a better balance between drowning the players with various numbers, and free-form roleplaying.  Too many computer RPGs (like, for instance Final Fantasy Tatics Advance) simply show too much information. It is nigh impossible to figure out what a Thief or Gladiator can actually use without buying something and trying to equip it; information about who can use an item is not consistently shown, and there is nothing obvious from the description or name of the item..... it is not a trivial matter to try to determine how to improve performance of the characters, either. Some parts of the game look more like a spreadsheet than a game.

Also, looking over some of the other posts have made me focus and prioritize exactly what is important in the gaming experience - that is to say, what I would like people to see, hear, feel, and do in the game. It seems that for a little more effort, I can give some sense of influence and control over what happens... that is a storytelling sort of issue, although, there are ways to make it so that people can participate in the storytelling. Final Fantasy VII and Golden Sun are very good at that, making you feel like a part of the story, and involving you deeply in the plot.

I have decided that instead of imposing classes on the player characters, I will impose them on the objects and monsters encountered instead. By putting groups of weapons and monsters into families, I hope to make them easier for me to manage and for the players to deal with. The levelling up would be by way of skills primarily, although I am still trying to decide how levelling should be handled.... I want to present the players with different challenges and leave it up to them how they meet it - or at least provide one alternative.

So, in short, it seems that I will modify an existing system. The other issues that I thought would be handled by the system mechanic can actually be better handled by other design areas (level design, setting design, etc.) - even though, from a strict pen-and-paper perspective, this may seem counter-intuitive. I still believe that pen-and-paper rules are excellent tools to use for a computer game design. I can tell you that the forums dedicated to computer RPGs are nowhere near as sophisticated or thoughful as this one. I will continue to lurk and watch this thread, and will ask more questions as they come up (possibly in a new thread)

@ Callahan S : Well, I suppose I would like the player to know certain things about the world they are in, and for a certain ending to be reached. I suppose it would not hurt if certain "bad" things happened along the way. I suppose an extreme example of twisting the player's arm into sticking with the story would be the dreaded FedEx Quest ("Deliver this vial/sword/jewel/Book of Forbidden Knowledge to the Old Woman on the Mountain for me and I'll tell you how to get past the Giant !" The Old Woman tells you "Well, this is nice, but I need a ferret's tail to go with it", etc. ad nauseum)

I want to avoid the FedEx Quest. Really. It is overused/abused too much in the CRPG world.  I was thinking of providing optional quests, as well as branches in the main storyline, where the player could see the effects of their actions on the landscape (other than just killing the Giant and getting some special Bow of Undead Death or some lame NPC text)

@ all others : Thanks again for all of your information /insights. I have much work/research ahead of me !

[Callan S.]

Hi,

I'm refering to something bigger than fedex quests. For example, if the ending you have in mind was where two warring nations put asside their differences to take on a greater threat (and see how their not so unalike), player input to stop you from getting exactly what you want might be the player having the opportunity and addressing the situation, to take the other nation and instead enslave it. Or siding with the greater evil agains the old foe (better the better devil you know!). Or sacrafice both sides to massive destruction, since evil must be crushed at any cost! This example is a little stale though - it doesn't refer to the ending you really, really want as the designer. You'd probably get what I meant, if I was using that particular ending as an example. You'd see how I'm refering to the player effecting what you as a designer care about. Which is why getting an undead death sword or lame text box for killing the giant, is lame. Not because it doesn't effect the game world in any real way - but because it doesn't effect what is important here. What the desingner thinks is important.

From my own experience of programming, I bet your thinking of how you'd have to script all sorts of endings whichthe majority of which would never be seen (certainly other CRPG designers have expressed that here). But I'll pause here to see if weve got some mutual ground or not.