Tales From The Rusty Broadsword Inn (Take 2) - Some sort of massive problem?

[Rafu]

Nice idea with the "Istincts".

[Narf the Mouse]

Thanks, but it's not mine. I 'researched' it off a review of another game.

I havn't had a chance to test it, but I do like the idea.

[BigElvis]

I read (or glimpsed through it at work) the main pdf and I have some comments.

There is as I see it a lot of problems regarding the GM and his role in the game. It seems to me there is not any difference between the traditional fiat-GM and your GM. If I were you I would try to get completely rid of the GM.
If you want to keep him, I think you should have the GM have some resources that he could use to set up difficulties in conflicts, create characters, barter with for scene changing a la fate points and such, basically everything the GM does. Basically I think everything in your text that says something is 'up to GMs assesment' or similar should be replaced with some rule mechanics for the GMs behaviour.

I like some of your ideas about conflict resolution. But in the example with the king I think there is a problem, again with the GMs role, because I dont really understand what happens mechanically if you succeed. Does the king get a 'really likes the PC +3' trait or something? And how does that exactly affect the kings character ? Is this up to the GM interpretation again?

Did you read the Story Does Matter article by Ron Edwards in the articles section? -If you didn't you really should.

There is also this standard list of questions for designers, I can't seem to find it in the articles section, so it is probably in a post somewhere.
One of the questions, which I would like for you to answer, is 'What is your game about?'.
Because of the title I thought it was about people telling tales in an inn, but now I think it is about playing out the tales (and whether or not they are actually ever told doesn't really matter mechanically)

[Narf the Mouse]

Thanks for taking the time.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with the GM setting scenes, adversaries and challenges with essentially unlimited resources. GM's running rough-shod over the characters (Or worse, players) for their own amusement is a personality problem, to me, not a resource problem - And limited resources doesn't solve the essential problem. If I can't trust the GM to be fair and impartial with unlimited resources, I can't trust them with limited resources, either.

Yes, I realize that this can easily lead to the GM stringing the story around by the nose, But - That is still a personality problem. And personality problems need to be worked out by the players - Not the game.

This raises the question of why have players have limited resources to build their characters and you know, the only reason I can think of is my default gamist perspective. Which does raise the point of how do the characters gain in power if they don't start with a limit - So...Put that entirely in the hands of player and GM discussion. Let them decide how high or lower powered the campaign will be and whether or not everyone will start at the same power level.

I guess I just don't see why players need a 'nanny game' - But then, my RP experience has been good, so far.

And I should really put out guidelines for how many fate points characters get for risky actions.

That's a problem with me knowing a rule implicitly, but failing to express it explicitly - In the standard rules, the king would gain a -3 penalty to any action which opposed that condition. For example, in a court trial, they would get a -3 penalty to trying to rule against that character. Another implicit but not explicit rule would be rolling abilities versus each other if you really want to be 'Dice-impartial' in decisions.

Thanks for pointing out two gaping holes in the standard rules. That also shows me a problem with my alternate conflict-resolution based rules and how to patch it.

I looked in the articles section, but couldn't find it.

The name came from a freeform game I GM'd, in which I used my ideas plus ideas the players threw in the pot. My original idea for the system was to just throw things in a pot and see what stuck, so I used the same name I had used for the RP. I'm considering shortening it down to just 'Tales' to avoid confusion.

Power 19? I never did fill one of those out for this. I'll go do that.

	Logged

[BigElvis]

It is not really a question of the GMs resources regarding what opposition he can throw at players. It is more a question of whether or not control of the story is divided equally among all participants at the table. Usually with a game like yours I would say it is not.

The article is named System Does Matter, not Story Does Matter.

Yes. Power 19. I forgot that, I have been away from The Forge for too long it seems.

About your answers:

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

The players direct their characters actions, set the stakes they are willing to risk to achieve their goals and experience the gameworld.

The way I read these rules (and I am not sure if this is the rules you mean you want to use, but I think so)

Conflict can involve characters, animals, monsters or the environment. In any case, both players
need to set stakes. Stakes can be anything, from the death of the other character to convincing the
character of some fact or opinion, casting an area of effect spell or building a ladder of pitons up the
side of a cliff face.

Is that the player sets his goals not so much his stakes.
The other player or GM seems to set what the player risks in the conflict.

Am i misreading the rules or is there a discrepancy here?

[Narf the Mouse]

The job of a GM, to me, is to provide a fair and unbiased world for the players to play in. If the GM properly sets up and plays NPCs, the players always have a chance to affect things. In some games, the PCs are central and everything revolves around them (Exalted). Or, at the other end of the range, the PCs are bit-players running from one near-disaster to the next (Warhammer FRP, I believe). And yeah, all that could be split between the players, but when I think about this game that way, it just seems to loose interest.

Actually, yeah, I confused goals and stakes there, although the player does have to decide if the goals are worth the stakes and there is room for discussion.

[Callan S.]

Basically I'd say the reason to have control is once you have it, you can face adversity. It's like climbing a tree vs being winched up to the top - the lack of control in the winching isn't really a big loss, but you do lose adversity as well.

[BigElvis]

Narf,
Could you give me an example of how your rules function in a moral conflict?

[Narf the Mouse]

@Callan S.: Good point about control. But I like the gamist aspect of character versus adversity, which in my mind works best with players and a GM. Maybe take a page from Donjon and allow players to narrate things into the game on a succesfull roll? Actually, the stakes rules would allow that already...Have to think about this more...

@BigElvis: Hmm...They can do the job; I'm not sure they could do that well. The rules treat every conflict the same; either inflict a negative modifier or set stakes and roll. The rules then presume that the person with the best roll has the best arguement, which is a neutral arbitor.

But perhaps a third conflict resolution would be best for more role-playing challenges - Something involving player consensus? Could have things resolved with a player vote, or have player votes give bonuses/penalties or just a simple majority veto of items that aren't that good.

On the other hand, the same could be said of physical combat.

Maybe a simple "For each person to show a significant positive reaction, you gain X bonus. For each person to show a significant negative reaction, you loose X penalty". Only written in a more interesting way.

All these conflict resolution rules could be modular, too. Ugh - More work. But the result could be worth it.

[Narf the Mouse]

Can I get some opinions on my Primary/Tagged mechanic as versus continueally-reducing returns (Primary, Primary/2, Primary/4, etc.) or straight add? Thanks.

[Narf the Mouse]

Muddling about with refining the rules for the next version, based on a thought I had. That thought being, the entire purpose of at least a third of the rules is almost always to generate a character sheet. Previously, I would write rules to get the character sheet I wanted. Then I thought, 'Why not write a character sheet and then extrapolate rules from it?'.

Anyway, how comprehensible is this? Does it show the character concept well?

Bren Highcloak
55/60 Fate Points

Abilities:
General:
   I've been everywhere (I do not get lost; I've met a lot of people; I know how to survive rough conditions; I know field medicine) Rating: 5/3/2/1, Fate Points: 20.

Area:
   My favorite weapons are dual rapiers (I know how to fight with them; I know the history of rapiers; I know quality weapons; I can asses an opponent) Rating: 4/2/1, Fate Points: 8.
   I know field medicine (I know medicinal plants; I know how to treat an injury; I know poisons; I know posionuous animals) Rating: 5/3/2/1, Fate Points: 10
   I was born a minor noble (I have some social status; I was trained in history; I was taught math; I was taught combat tactics) 4/2/1, Fate Points 8

Singe Effect:
I am quite adept at dodging. Rating: 5/3/2/1, Fate Points 2.5
I am quite good at counterattacks. Rating: 5/3/2/1, Fate Points 2.5

Reflex Actions:
When I sense immenent, unknown danger, I immediatly dodge. Fate Points: 3.

Items:
Specific
My primary rapier was made by a master swordsman (It is easier to counter attacks with it; It has a sharp edge, allowing better cutting attacks; It is unlikely to break; Its strength is usefull when lunging) Rating: 2/1, Fate Points: 2.
My secondary rapier was also made by a master swordsman (It is easier to parry with; It is easier to evade attempts to disarm me; It is unlikely to break; Its flexibility is usefull when piercing armour) Rating: 2/1, Fate Points: 2.

Thanks.