The Abnormal RPG ...

[Jeff Moore]

Vincent Baker, owner of lumpley games and author of "Dogs in the Vineyard" said, "Don't make another normal RPG. There are plenty and more than plenty, there are too many people still making them anyway, and they have bigger budgets than you can compete with. Don't waste your time."

Read the entire interview here:

http://primevalpress.com/item/9

(the interview is a few year's old, but I just read it recently,)

This seems like good advice but is also pretty daunting. I mean ... what is a "normal" RPG? And along that line of thinking can't an unusually "abnormal" RPG greatly limit your target audience?

I have more or less avoided posting stuff over here at the forge. There is a reputation here ... or a perception that the forge is all about the abstraction of role-playing games ... that allusive "abnormal" game of which Mr. Baker refers. This has kept me away. I am an old school gamer. I have been playing the same RPG the same way for over 25 years. I have also been tinkering with my own rules ideas, game mechanics, whatever, for just as long. I like trying new games. I enjoy bringing them to my group. But I am not sure how "abstract" I can get. I bought WOC's Everway when it came out. It is supposed to be this great groundbreaking RPG, full of new ideas. Maybe it is, but for myself and my goup it was too abstract. It was just too different.

I like, The Fantasy Trip, and Traveller, and Warhammer Fantasy Role-play, and yes... D&D. I also really loved the SAGA system as implemented in the Marvel Super Hero Adventure Game ... old school. I still tinker with my own game ideas, because even though there is a lot out there that does what I want, there is still room for improvement.

Here is what I want to improve about the RPG experiences that I have had ...

Character Creation.

Normal games usually get it wrong.

Point based systems require players to come to the table with a "concept" and usually some basic understanding of the rules.

Random systems produce characters of unequal value ... a lucky roll gives a player a "better" character than someone who happens to roll "poorly."

What I want:

Character Creation based on a finite number of choices. Each choice is equal to but different from the next.

Players who know what they want simply choose. Players who do not, can throw the dice for random selection but are not weakened in their choices simply because they don't know the rules or don't have a "concept" going in.

Oh, and point systems have math... this may be gamer sacrilege but, I hate math.

Combat Systems.

Normal games seem to all be the same.

Abstract story telling systems lack strategy.

Normal RPGs tend to rely on wargame scale model simulations that basically reduce all RPG combat down to a game of chess.

Story focused systems tend to reduce combat to a more abstract narrative form that deemphasizes strategy and the use of dice.

I think the use of dice is important. For me that's what puts the "Game" in RPG. I like the strategy of combat. But I don't like that every "normal" RPG seems to be little more than a variation on chess.

What I want:

I want a combat system that retains elements of strategic choice and random chance, but doesn't use a grid of anykind, or chess pieces (miniatures,) or a board.

These days my friends and I tend to play piled around the living room. Table space is non-existent, but it seems like if you don't map the combat out on a table, you eliminate strategy. I want a combat system that finds it's strategy elsewhere.

Finally, I want these solutions in a Super Hero RPG. I grew up with comic books. Was introduced to D&D by early adds in comics. My love of writing and illustrating comes from the comics. So, my game will be a super hero game.

I still want a "normal" gaming experience in the traditional sense. But, I want to resolve some things that I perceive as problems with that experience. These are my motivators in creating my own RPG.

I do think my RPG creation is still "normal" in the traditional RPG sense. But, I feel that I have something to offer. A few solutions to a few problems that I have encountered during my time of play.

I would love to have my work regarded here and honestly evaluated. I have a small playtest document that I have completed. It tries to address those "problems" that I define above.

http://www.rpglaboratory.com/files/Complete_Basic_Brawl.pdf

I am looking for opinion ... does my work solve the problems that I raise? Does it make the game "different" enough to make it worth while ... or am I too "normal?" How might I improve the game?

The layout of the game sets it up as a small collection of Single Sheet (2 page) RPG's (sort of quick play docs.) I found this format helpful in forcing me to keep my ideas simple and compact. Also, by literally creating the work 1 page at a time, I was able to always see myself progressing forward and my next goal was never too far out of reach. The game won't stay in this form for long, but this should work well as something I can take to the tabletop and run through its paces.

Regards,


Jeff Moore

[Adam Dray]

On a quick skim, it looks solid enough. So it's a GMless game and the players create characters and beat on each other? Is there more to it than that?

Did you meet your goals? I think the game has more math (formulae) than D&D and fewer tactical options, but it's certainly shorter.

I don't understand what makes the professions and stuff useful in the slightest. Who cares if you're a teacher when you're bleeding on the ground?

How have the playtests gone?

[Jeff Moore]

So it's a GMless game and the players create characters and beat on each other?

In putting everything together I tried to create a "complete" game component in each section of the game. The first component is combat so it is presented as a head-to-head type of game.

Is there more to it than that?

The next sections introduce the traditional concepts of a GM (referee) and campaign play in differing settings. Granted the campaign aspects are under developed (read: non-existent) at this time.

Did you meet your goals?

I believe that I did. Now the question becomes, is what I have produced here playable for anyone but me?

I think the game has more math (formulae) than D&D and fewer tactical options, but it's certainly shorter.

Gosh ... I hope there isn't more math here. Every stat in D&D adds to something... to hit, damage, armor class, saving throws... this mechanic does work much the same in that regard but it's only got 4 stats to D&D's 6 ... so hopefully I come out ahead (or rather behind) in the math complexity arena.

Yes, my game does certainly have fewer tactical options, but what of the options it does have and the fact that it tries to present these options in a "chess board free" environment. Do you think players will insist on having things like "attacks of opportunity" and "line of sight?" I am trying to provide fun choices beyond those specific limitations.

I don't understand what makes the professions and stuff useful in the slightest. Who cares if you're a teacher when you're bleeding on the ground?

Spider-man is both a super hero and a teacher... his vocation provides complexities and each aspect of his life tends to complicate the other. As I work on developing the "environment" of the game, vocations will become more important.

***

Thank you for your feed back. I will work on making the application of Vocations more clear. In a strictly "Street Fighter" type world the vocation mechanic is worthless. As I move the entire game from generic combat engine to Super hero RPG I will do my best to rectify this.

Regards,


Jeff Moore

[Adam Dray]

In putting everything together I tried to create a "complete" game component in each section of the game. The first component is combat so it is presented as a head-to-head type of game.

So it's modular, you mean? But each module is independent and stands on its own as a minigame?

The next sections introduce the traditional concepts of a GM (referee) and campaign play in differing settings. Granted the campaign aspects are under developed (read: non-existent) at this time.

Will the next sections talk about challenges outside of combat? Are those things mostly unimportant to play? Are they important to play but you expect that the GM and players will resolve them using non-dice methods (e.g., "Oh, you're a scientist and teacher, so let's just say you can explain this complicated math thing to the lab helper")?

Did you meet your goals?

I believe that I did. Now the question becomes, is what I have produced here playable for anyone but me?

Only playtesting will answer that. No one's opinion here overrides that. It's like the scientific method. You look at the facts (previous play), come up with a theory (an untested game design), then test it (play the game) and see where your theories failed. Repeat as necessary.

I think the game has more math (formulae) than D&D and fewer tactical options, but it's certainly shorter.

Gosh ... I hope there isn't more math here. Every stat in D&D adds to something... to hit, damage, armor class, saving throws... this mechanic does work much the same in that regard but it's only got 4 stats to D&D's 6 ... so hopefully I come out ahead (or rather behind) in the math complexity arena.

Yes, my game does certainly have fewer tactical options, but what of the options it does have and the fact that it tries to present these options in a "chess board free" environment. Do you think players will insist on having things like "attacks of opportunity" and "line of sight?" I am trying to provide fun choices beyond those specific limitations.

I think it's more complicated than D&D 3E, yeah. Here's the Combat section of the D20 SRD, for reference. Let's compare melee combat:

D&D 3E Combat (the basics):

1. Roll initiative: d20 + Dexterity modifier. Players go in initiative order (highest to lowest).
2. Declare what you're doing ("I hit the tall orc").
3. Roll attack: d20 + attack bonus (base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier).
4. Compare against armor class (10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier).
5. If attack roll >= armor class, you roll damage (generally dice based on weapon + Strength modifier).
6. Reduce hit points by damage until hit points < 0 (incapacitated and unconscious).

So it's basically three mechanics, which are "roll a d20, add some bonuses, and compare to some other number" (the basic D20 System mechanic), plus stacking modifiers (simple addition of small numbers, occasionally addition of a -1 or -2), plus the damage and hit points thing.

Basic Brawl Combat:

1. Declare method of attack ("I will jab...").
2. Roll initiative: d6 + method of attack modifier. Players go in initiative order (highest to lowest).
3. Declare what you're doing ("I will jab the tall orc...") and where you try to hit them ("in the head...").
4. Roll attack: 2d6 + accuracy modifier (based on method of attack).
5. Compare against Evasion Value (based on body location).
6. If attack roll >= Evasion Value, it's a hit...
6.a. Person hit makes a Toughness roll: 2d6 + Toughness modifier (based on body location).
6.b. Compare against attacker's Power (based on method of attack).
6.c. If Toughness roll > Power, defender can change the body location hit to any other.
7. Reduce that body location's value by 1.

So it's basically a couple mechanics, which are "roll d6 and add modifiers," "roll 2d6 and add modifiers," "choose a target location and apply appropriate modifiers," "choose method of attack and apply appropriate modifiers," "compare rolls to certain values to succeed," "change target location," and "reduce a target location."

I think it's more complicated than D&D, and we haven't gotten to any of the exceptions. Maybe that's where D&D gets more complicated, but I doubt it. Certainly, D&D's magic system and feats complicate things but they're generally one-off complications that add lots of tactical value and no new formulae, just more modifiers.

I think your game is less elegant mechanically than D&D because you don't have a single unifying resolution mechanic. You have several different types of rolls. You could simplify things a bit by basing the entire game on 2d6 + modifiers, and change initiative to use that. I would assume that your other conflicts will use that, too. When you get to non-combat situations, though, how will you handle opposition? You've focused your system on combat stats based on combat stances and methods of attack and you might not find that conducive to resolving, say, understanding a mysterious alien tome. How do you set the difficulty target number for that?

I don't think the dice/math elegance thing is a show-stopper, by any means. I just don't think your combat procedure is simpler than D&D's by any stretch. If you're fine with that, cool beans! You say you don't want to abstract things away; you say you want a combat system -- maybe the combat system just gets more "crunch" in your game than in other games and you're happy with that. Awesome.

Spider-man is both a super hero and a teacher... his vocation provides complexities and each aspect of his life tends to complicate the other. As I work on developing the "environment" of the game, vocations will become more important.

Thank you for your feed back. I will work on making the application of Vocations more clear. In a strictly "Street Fighter" type world the vocation mechanic is worthless. As I move the entire game from generic combat engine to Super hero RPG I will do my best to rectify this.

Are you starting with a combat game and adding on other stuff? I think, if you do that, you end up with a game that's about combat... and other stuff. But about combat first and foremost. I get the impression that you're absolutely fine with that. If so, there's no problem.

Just out of curiosity, what superhero RPGs have you read or played?

Oh, and welcome to the Forge!

[Jeff Moore]

So it's modular, you mean? But each module is independent and stands on its own as a minigame?

It is modular, but each new module is dependent upon the ones that came before it...

Basic Brawl stands alone.

Advanced Brawl requires Basic Brawl ... together they can stand alone.

Super Brawl requires Basic Brawl and Advanced Brawl ... together the three can stand alone.

Fantasy Brawl requires Basic Brawl and Advanced Brawl and Super Brawl.

Each modular component expands the scope of the game.

Will the next sections talk about challenges outside of combat? Are those things mostly unimportant to play? Are they important to play but you expect that the GM and players will resolve them using non-dice methods (e.g., "Oh, you're a scientist and teacher, so let's just say you can explain this complicated math thing to the lab helper")?

and ...

I think your game is less elegant mechanically than D&D because you don't have a single unifying resolution mechanic. You have several different types of rolls. You could simplify things a bit by basing the entire game on 2d6 + modifiers, and change initiative to use that. I would assume that your other conflicts will use that, too. When you get to non-combat situations, though, how will you handle opposition? You've focused your system on combat stats based on combat stances and methods of attack and you might not find that conducive to resolving, say, understanding a mysterious alien tome. How do you set the difficulty target number for that?

Advanced Brawl has rules for using your Body Part Values to roll Task Resolutions. If you need to understand a mysterious alien tome you would roll 2d6 and add your Head value (head is related to intellect so that would be value most applicable to the task.) If your character has the Scientist vocation the Referee may decide that vocation is relevant to the task and allow you a +3 to your die roll. If the referee wants deciphering the tome to be difficult he can apply penalties to your roll (say -2). All task resolution requires a 12 for success.

I don't think the dice/math elegance thing is a show-stopper, by any means. I just don't think your combat procedure is simpler than D&D's by any stretch. If you're fine with that, cool beans! You say you don't want to abstract things away; you say you want a combat system -- maybe the combat system just gets more "crunch" in your game than in other games and you're happy with that. Awesome.

and

Are you starting with a combat game and adding on other stuff? I think, if you do that, you end up with a game that's about combat... and other stuff. But about combat first and foremost. I get the impression that you're absolutely fine with that. If so, there's no problem.

Combat crunch at a very basic level without resorting to grid movement is what I want. I want crunchy strategy without flanking, or concealment, or 5 foot steps, or attacks of opportunity. And yeah, "combat ... with other stuff" is fine with me. So much of the other stuff will take care of itself.

Just out of curiosity, what superhero RPGs have you read or played?

Played:

Champions
Villains and Vigilantes
Marvel Superheroes RPG (original TSR)
Marvel Super Hero Adventure Game (SAGA)
Mutants and Masterminds (1st ed.)
BASH (Basic Action Super Heroes)
With Great Power
Dream Park (not really a supers game ... but it could be.)


Read:

Four Color to Fantasy
Living Legends
Hearts and Souls
Modern Knights
Power Grrrl
Blood and Vigilance
Teenagers from Outer Space
Golden Age Heroes
Justice Incorporated
Supers Inc.
Guardians of Metro City
Truth and Justice
Marvel Universe RPG (uses the stones)
DC Heroes (original mayfair)


Of those played the Marvel SAGA is the favorite. Of those read, Truth and Justice is fantastic and I hope to play it one day. I am sure I have missed some. Especially free downloads of games found on the web. I am something of a super hero RPG whore.

Oh, and welcome to the Forge!

Thank you. And thank you for taking the time to look at what I am doing here and commenting on it. I really appreciate the feedback.

Regards,


Jeff Moore