NOVEL RPG System

[Eldrad]

BOOM! There goes my mind expanding!

Player control of the plot to an extent. Wow a new paradigm for me! My brain hurts!

I could have it where the player could narrate (if he/she wants to) what exactly happens to him or her if he or she so chooses if a very positive and negative result happens.


Whoa this is a completely new concept for me.

With some of my players it could really be the best thing since oatmeal.

You guys may have inadvertently made ma a millionaire! Nope! Damn! rolled a 1!

Thanks I just might go in a few more directions!

Indeed, you would have to have about ONE chart with 10-20 results that would suggest general direction

Filip Luszczyk give me some ideas of different charts so I can see what you mean.

OK so I am going to give the players some narrative control or possibly everyone may have narrative control if they behave right. Got to get some together to playtest real soon.


The Forge rules!

[Filip Luszczyk]

Filip Luszczyk give me some ideas of different charts so I can see what you mean.

You can see an example of what I mean in the post in which I proposed it

You can have a chart with very general categories of plot development. "Attracts trouble", "limiting condition", "mission gets complicated", "a concrete step in completing the mission" and so on and on, whatever you need. I suppose about 10 categories should be sufficient. With about 10 categories, you can still use d20 to determine the quality of the performance with the same roll. E.g. if odd results are failures and even results are successes, you can have something like:

1 - Failure, and there's a new complication in completing the mission.
2 - Success, but it complicates the mission.
3 - Failure, and you attract trouble.
4 - Success, but you attract trouble.
5 - Failure, and you're under a limiting condition (e.g. wound) as a result.
6 - Success, but at the cost of falling under a limiting condition.
7 - Failure, but regardless something brings you closer to completing your mission.
8 - Success, and it brings you closer to completing your mission.
9 - (...)

And so on. Obviously, you could have completely different categories, and distribute probabilities differently, as needed. I'm just showing you an example of the principle.

Notice how one roll can tell you more about what happens than various steps of success/failure, but at the same time don't tell you what exactly happens or how it happens. The "what" emerges from the situational context, and the "how" is colored by the character's description.

[David Artman]

I like Filip's chart more than the Universal chart... but I still wonder why a character even needs to have a trait, if it's never a metric or quantifier. Even with "situational prompts" in the success/failure spectrum, the GM is still fiating how competent a player's character is in EVERY situation, based on a short descriptor.

That's why I suggest playing Universalis, to see what it *really* means to have "no character metrics" (because you don't really play a single character, anyway) or play UniStat to see what a character-driven but player-narration-granting game is like. And, yep, UniStat has metrics ... of a sort... and a trait for your "schtick"... you gotta read it (one-page rules, also, FYI).

Anyhow... I believe in using what's readily available (even freely available) unless it totally misses one's goal; and UniStat, Universalis, or even TWERPS provides the system that the OP is trying to develop, right out of the gate. I can't think of anything further to add to this discussion that isn't better explained in--or more illuminating than--those very rulebooks.

Bon chance!
David

[Eldrad]

Thank you Fillip I will see how that works out.

I like Filip's chart more than the Universal chart... but I still wonder why a character even needs to have a trait, if it's never a metric or quantifier. Even with "situational prompts" in the success/failure spectrum, the GM is still fiating how competent a player's character is in EVERY situation, based on a short descriptor.


The "traits" help modify the situation. A GM has to do that with actual numbers as well. I would not require a plot roll in every situation. 

David I have checked out the other games suggested except for Universalis. I will take a look.

BTW David your GLASS game looks really cool from a glance. I was with a group trying to create a Universal LARP System but everyone suddenly dropped off. Can't get Shade's LARPlist up to post a link. Take a look there!

[Eldrad]

Well I guess I will have to post a play test to really explain how this system works.

In initial self test it seems to work perfectly.

I will add in the aspect of letting the character narrate what happens from the result of the dice roll, OR the player has the option to let the GM run the game.

I may also going to try to do a GMless game if possible. 

This site has let me see completely new paradigms in RPGs that I have never ever thought of. 

I will set it in my really old Sci Fi setting called STARCLADS. A gigantic multi genre sci-fi setting. I will explain in first thoughts if any are interested.

[Sydney Freedberg]

BOOM! There goes my mind expanding! Player control of the plot to an extent. Wow a new paradigm for me! My brain hurts!  I could have it where the player could narrate (if he/she wants to) what exactly happens to him or her if he or she so chooses if a very positive and negative result happens.  Whoa this is a completely new concept for me.

If you're looking for new paradigms of player control over plot, you might want to check out some games that get rid of the "GM" vs. "player" distinction altogether:

Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes's Universalis, which David Artman already recommended, is the pioneer in this field; a revised edition is now out.

Tony Lower-Basch's superhero game Capes, which has a free preview version available online.

Ben Lehman's Polaris, which not only has GM duties rotating scene-by-scene but has a resolution system entirely without numbers, only words.

And you can always try to track down The Pool, which existed free online for a while and allowed players to do a "monologue of victory" (or even, I think, a "monologue of defeat") on very good (or bad) rolls.

[Vulpinoid]

There are some good points being raised here, the only issue I have with this discussion is the fact that people are bringing dice into a free-forming environment.

From the dozens of freeforms I've played over the years (hundreds if you include Mind's Eye Theatre rules from White Wolf), I've found that the very idea of finding a flat surface to roll dice on slows the flow of a free-form game.

When it comes to alternate mechanics that I've seen work well in freeforms, we go from random card drawing to the "scissors-rock-paper" found in Mind's Eye Theatre, or simply the call of the GM. Each have their merits and flaws.

Consider this idea.

You write your character up as a short paragraph of text, you underline six key words in the description. These become the "skills" of the character. Any time the character wants to attempt something they play "scissors-rock-paper" [S-R-P] twice against their opponent, or against the GM if there is no specific opponent. Each win counts as a success, each loss counts as a fail. Ties don't affect the result. If the character has a specific "skill" that applies in the situation, they can turn one of their fails into a tie, or one of their ties into a success. A GM may even let a character do this twice if the character has two "skills" that apply. Two well skilled players could end up modifying and countermodifying the results until it ends up being a pretty balanced contest again.

Once the [S-R-P] has been played and "skills" have been applied, the final result can be determined.

Two net successes - Major success by the victor, they may knock out their opponent, leap a chasm easily or succeed beyond expectations on an experiment.
One net success - Minor success by the victor, they may deal a flesh wound, just manage to leap a chasm or perform an experiment with expected results.
All successes and failures cancel out - Neither contestant meets their goals. Nothing much changes. Someone trying to leap a chasm may just manage to hold on to the opposite ledge (requiring a new [S-R-P] test), the experiement may need quite a bit more work before it gives a result.
One net failure - Minor failure, maybe they take a wound from their opponent or their weapon jams, perhaps they realise in time that the chasm is too wide and stop themselves before they leap, maybe the experiment doesn't give any results and it wastes the required materials.
Two net failures - Catastrophe, they fall in combat and their opponent gets a free shot, they miss the leap completely and plummet to the ground, the experiment blows up in their face.

If someone has a strategic advantage in a situation, a GM could give them a "Virtual Skill" for the contest. Giving them a bit of an edge. If the character is trying something particularly hard or something they've never done before, the GM could even allocate a "Negative skill" or two to reflect this added difficulty.

These would be the basic fundamentals of the system, and it would take a bit more work to make a fully fleshed out concept that would work in any game genre and situation. It's just an idea I've been toying with for the last couple of years.   

V

[Sydney Freedberg]

That's a neat idea.

The problem that always, always arises is giving too much power and too few guidelines to the GM. What's a "major success"? What's "minor"? It's not just that the players are likely to complain if things don't go their way; it's that the GM is having to make so much up on the fly.

Capes has a pretty cool mechanic for turning specific levels of victory and defeat into specific levels of advantage to apply to later conflicts; it's worth checking out. Basically, winning a conflict gets you "Inspirations" you can trade in for bonuses to future dice rolls, while losing a conflict gives you "Story Tokens" that you can trade in for extra actions, bringing in an NPC under your control, and all sorts of other neat stuff.

[Vulpinoid]

The problem that always, always arises is giving too much power and too few guidelines to the GM. What's a "major success"? What's "minor"? It's not just that the players are likely to complain if things don't go their way; it's that the GM is having to make so much up on the fly.

Point taken, maybe I'm just the kind of GM who does too many things on the fly, preferring style-over-substance...that sort of thing. I know that players have come back time and again to my freeform games at conventions. So they seem to enjoy it. I guess it all comes down to the definition of "Freeform", as I see it "Pure freeform" has no rules what-so-ever but requires very mature players and GMs.

If players and GM were given a sample list of comparitive outcomes constituting each outcome level from the beginning of the game, they could consult such a chart and come up with equivalent results if they've been attempting completely different feats. Still, the more rules that are applied to a freeform, the less "Pure" it becomes in my eyes (this applies to rules that bring dice ito the setting, or any other randomising or resolution mechanic). I know we need a balance between playability, story and simulation, so maybe a page with each of the outcome levels applied to the fields of physical, social, mental, mystical and combat.

I like the idea of giving characters a "story token" that has a later outcome if they lose, that always makes players feel less like failures.

V

[Sydney Freedberg]

as I see it "Pure freeform" has no rules what-so-ever but requires very mature players and GMs.

Mature, probably. More to the point, it requires players and GMs who are in sync with each other to work really well, because so much of the "system" is unspoken. Much of a well-written rules set is simply putting into writing explicit procedures and guidelines on how people interact around the table in a group that makes this particular game work. Saying "roleplay well" or "be an experienced GM" or "be mature" is to a great degree a hand-wave: These things can be formalized to a significant degree, and if you're writing rules you expect anyone who doesn't know you personally to try playing, you should be formalizing them.

I like the idea of giving characters a "story token" that has a later outcome if they lose, that always makes players feel less like failures.

It's more than a compensation, actually. In Capes, the story tokens create a dynamic push-and-pull: Because there are certain things you can only do with story tokens (like introduce a subordinate NPC under your control or take an extra action), and because you can only get story tokens by losing, often you have to lose now to win later. It nicely simulates certain kinds of stories where the hero gets beat down and beat down and then suddenly rises up, full of renewed conviction, to turn the tables on the bad guys.

[Eldrad]

Thanks for the links Sydney.

I guess I need to use another word other that freeform. Hmm what to call a plot/resolution system used  outside the story itself.

I will call the character creation freeform as you just come up with a concept limited only by the GM.

I like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means.

For example a player (a laser toting mercenary) is faced with a group of hired lizard like alien thugs to kill him. The player rolls a D20. The GM could tell what happens.

This is how I would read the results.

20   Perfection - The Player Blast away defeating the entire group in one round of lucky shots! He possibly gets an award for heroics! All good things come his way! The enemy is routed!
18-19   Extremely Good - As above to a lesser degree. Maybe one of them gets away but the player still comes out victorious.
16-17   Very Good - A few are taken out but the battle still will go on for awhile. A few may retreat
13-15   Good - A few are taken out but they don't retreat. If a large and dangerous enough force, they may actually advance.
9-12   Neutral - Lots of shots are fired and allot of collateral damage. No one is pushed back. No one is injured except maybe a few unlucky NPCs!
6-8   Bad - The PC may take a light wound or a few reinforcements show up. A few more NPCs may die.
4-5   Very Bad - The PC may take a serious wound or an NPC may take a Critical wound and be in great need of medical care. The PC's forces are pushed back. The enemy seems to be winning.
2-3   Extremely Bad - The PC takes a Severe wound of some sort and can barely hold on. The enemy is advancing, the defenses are breached. NPCs on the players side die in droves or a very important NPC dies.
1   Disastrous - The PC may die from horrible wounds, the base is destroyed, all his NPC forces are killed and or routed, the PC is captured!

You don't have to accept one roll as the outcome. The players actions can allow for another roll to see how the plot goes. The GM can, depending on what the PCs do make the result go up and down. For instance if a player would call in reinforcements the results may go more positive.

Damage is written down as a condition as there no actual hit points. A Bad wound is something non life threating at the time. A Very Bad wound will slow a Player down unless treated. An Extremely Bad Wound would incapacitate the character in some way. All these conditions could be modified on the spot depending on the characters story and what possible effect any protection or Armor might give. For example a Grizzled Bounty Hunter would be less effected by an injury that a Professor of Pangalatic Languages or a Spoiled Rich Kid.

[Vulpinoid]

I guess I need to use another word other that freeform. Hmm what to call a plot/resolution system used  outside the story itself.

This is pretty much playing with semantics. I guess that "freeform" has a fairly specific definition here in Australia where it was developed as a concept in the early 80's and has been a staple at conventions for over 20 years now. What we used to call freeforming in the late 80's and early 90's is often referred to now as Live Action Role Playing [LARP], but with even less emphasis on rules and more focus on story and characterisation.

Based on what I've seen in my first few days around here, I guess definitions and semantics are pretty big points of discussion and argument.

Mature, probably. More to the point, it requires players and GMs who are in sync with each other to work really well, because so much of the "system" is unspoken. Much of a well-written rules set is simply putting into writing explicit procedures and guidelines on how people interact around the table in a group that makes this particular game work. Saying "roleplay well" or "be an experienced GM" or "be mature" is to a great degree a hand-wave: These things can be formalized to a significant degree, and if you're writing rules you expect anyone who doesn't know you personally to try playing, you should be formalizing them.

Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation on what I was indicating as a "freeform". Which may just be a paradigm clash between the roleplayiong scene in this part of the world and the role-playing scene in other parts of the world. We can argue semantics until we come full circle and start the process again. Unless both our paradigms expand to include the other's model, nothing will get accomplished.

I'm going to spend a few days reading through the various discussion threads on this forum to explore the paradigm set up here, the whole GNS model thing which has got me intrigued (which I've never encountered over here, especially how it seems to tie to certain peoples bitter hatred of White Wolf's "World of Darkness"...)

It nicely simulates certain kinds of stories where the hero gets beat down and beat down and then suddenly rises up, full of renewed conviction, to turn the tables on the bad guys.

Before I go, I could easily say the flip side of the argument used in Sydney's first quote mentioned above. A GM who holds the mythic "hero" story cycle in regard while weaving their roleplaying scenarios will not have need of rules mechanics to bring this concept to the experience of their players. Some would even say that deliberately imposing such a concept into the rules is simply a crutch, or even a tool to be exploited by metagamers.

V

[Sydney Freedberg]

I like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means....

Okay, but realize that even the refined version of your table puts a huge responsibility on the GM to interpret how your "loose explanation" applies to this specific situation, with very little guidance. If your players really trust the GM, or if they're just extremely deferential, this will work; if not, it'll bog the game down in endless arguments, which is the exact opposite of what you want.

[Eldrad]

I like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means....

Okay, but realize that even the refined version of your table puts a huge responsibility on the GM to interpret how your "loose explanation" applies to this specific situation, with very little guidance. If your players really trust the GM, or if they're just extremely deferential, this will work; if not, it'll bog the game down in endless arguments, which is the exact opposite of what you want.

Well that can happen with any rule system big or small.

There will be in some cases where the player interprets the result. I am going to try to have the game where a GM can run it, the players can sometimes interpret the result, or all the players make the story and there is no GM at all.

Thanks so much for your critiques.

[Sydney Freedberg]

...that can happen with any rule system big or small.

True, but "big or small" isn't the issue. The clearer the writing of the rules, and the more thoroughly they have been playtested, the less potential for such arguments.

To beat a dead horse soundly, just in case: Saying "that can happen any with rule system" or "the players need to be mature" is an abdication of your responsibility as a designer. If you intend to offer a game to anyone besides your personal friends, you have an obligation to make the rules as tight as you can, because the problems of bickering and confusion can be lessened, if never entirely removed, by careful design.