D100 (if you can't please every one let them please themselves)

[Seth M. Drebitko]

So the other day my girl friend was complaining that games have to many rules that don't get used by the group, nearly a quarter sometimes. I took this into consideration (as it's something I have noticed as well) in making the play test of my game which was a very minimalist system. This delve into the concept of minimalism was a short lived dream, which ended in the constant bickering of the group as to things which were either lightly touched on, or not at all. It became apparent to me there are three types of gamers:

Those that want more
Those that want less
Those that want there own

My goal then was to decide which group(s) to accommodate, and how to treat the rest. I came down to the decision that I would target those that want less, appeal to those who want their own,  and provide a viable option to those who want more.

My minimalist system will include rules specifically for managing situations in which the game system lacks specific detail on things a group might want. Now the method is not fully detailed just a concept in my head mostly but I am thinking some kind of bidding system.

Now my question is (while I am still fleshing this out a bit) have you seen a mechanical method like this in place, how did it function, and what inherit flaws did you find with it. I am hoping that any insight from other similar methods could help with what I have going at the moment.

Right now I am thinking of something like this.
Each player starts with 5 influence points. At any point they feel a game is not clear enough on an existing rule, or does not include a needed rule they can permanently burn the influence point from the pool to create a new rule. Any one may veto a rule by challenging it with their influence points. A challenge may be entered by any number of participants whom may stake any desired claim as follows:

To side with the rule being created
To alter and stake claim on the rule being created
To oppose the rule being created
To contribute to one already defined side

The number of influence gambled equals the number of d10 rolled by each person, the original creator gets an extra die for free. The person (or side) with he most obviously wins and the following resolution occurs:

The rule goes into effect and the creator gains 1 influence point every time some one else uses the rule.
The new and altered rule goes into effect and the person who changed it gains the benefits when any one but he and the original creator use the rule.
The rule is put out of place and the person(s) who vetoed it are the only ones who can put it back.
Any one who contributed to any side winning gets double what they put in.

Well thats the basics...I am not sure what influence does beyond this but I don't think it needs to do anything else. Any opinions on how successfully implemented into a game would be greatly appreciated. 

regards, Seth

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Seth,

That's neat! If I'm understanding correctly, the game does start with a default resolution system, right? As a sort of starting point, to build upon or perhaps subtract from as time passes?

As far as getting influence from people using one's new rule goes, I'm not so sure ... that's exactly the kind of thing that I tend to forget during play. On the other hand, the system might use tokens or colored thingies to track the usage.

If you haven't already, check out the game Universalis which also builds all aspects of play from the ground up - up to and including the starting rules. One thing that Universalis does quite well is assign specific values to specific changes - a point equals a die, for instance - but also allows people to bid to make the rule more expensive or even to outbid its existence.

Best, Ron

[simon_hibbs]

That sounds like fun. I propose a rule whereby player character weapons do ten times more damage than NPC weapons. Any other players want to oppose me? No? Quite happy with that? I thought so!

Joking aside, there is huge scope for abuse with this. On he other hand as a game of farce it has huge entertainment potential. Think Munchkin on acid...... ok, even more acid.

As a 'serious' gaming tool though the problem is you're introducing a whole new metagame of rules management on top of the existing system, distracting everyone's attention from the game you're actually there to play. I can see that if you already have significant disruption to the game from rules discussion this could streamline the process, but what's wrong with simple democratic show of hands each time?

Best regards,

Simon Hibbs

[ODDin]

This does sound interesting, but I just have to agree with SImon. This won't likely fit in a too serious game, as the metagame discussions are at a serious risk of overshadowing anything else. You might end up with the group constantly trying to use or not use specific rules in order to gain or not let others gain influence point, regardless of situation or reason.
It sounds like a really a fun game on its own, but in my opinion, it's a bad way to solve a serious problem in a specific game. When rules are an issue in a more serious game, I suggest the group sits aside outside the regular sessions and decides. The bidding system might be an alternative to a standard democratic system, but you shouldn't put to much emphasis on it, so as to not let it creep into the game proper.

Another question: why did you say D100 in the name of the thread?


Michael Pevzner

[Callan S.]

I'd recommend looking at universalis as well - these mechanics do not overshadow the game, they become the game. Which is really fun when you think how evenly everyone has points to spend on it - that eveness sets you up for some great creative push and pull, taking you places no one at the table could guess and certainly no one outside the game room!

Ok, mostly an encouragement post, I admit!

[Seth M. Drebitko]

the game does start with a default resolution system, right? As a sort of starting point, to build upon or perhaps subtract from as time passes?

Correct this rule will be in addition to a minimalist pre-defined frame work. The actual core rules (the d100 system) will include rules for task resolution as well as laid out rules for utilizing "kewl powerz". I want the section on the "kewl powerz" to detail more than the standard hey here is a couple examples of some super powers. The rule in question will be used by the group to resolve arguments over anything either deemed unclear, or not included by the group.

As far as getting influence from people using one's new rule goes, I'm not so sure ... that's exactly the kind of thing that I tend to forget during play. On the other hand, the system might use tokens or colored thingies to track the usage.

Yea I have been thinking on this also. I the reason I included the influence gain was because I wanted to have some way for the player to invest in their concept. The more I have thought about it though the more I am thinking it may be a better idea to just have a standard voting system influence aside. (I ordered universalis today when I got home from work so I will look into it when it gets here.)

As a 'serious' gaming tool though the problem is you're introducing a whole new metagame of rules management on top of the existing system, distracting everyone's attention from the game you're actually there to play. I can see that if you already have significant disruption to the game from rules discussion this could streamline the process, but what's wrong with simple democratic show of hands each time?

Well the reason I want to include this is because I have seen far to many games derailed for nearly an hour or so at a time. With this method I hope to create a quick fun method in which the players can resolve any conflicts over rules clarification/creation as well as feeling the satisfaction and reward of quickly getting the game back on track.

You might end up with the group constantly trying to use or not use specific rules in order to gain or not let others gain influence point, regardless of situation or reason.

Well I want to try and keep a balance between the actual rules to of play and the rues of regulating play separate enough that players are not specifically going out of their way to create situations where they use new rules, but that if the need exists that medium will exist.

Right now I think the big thing is the decision in how the the meta game mechanic will interact with the standard mechanics. While I recognize that this is more or less something that could be applied to any game once it is made I am intending it for use with the d100 system.

Thanks Callan thats pretty much what I am looking to do is create a rules light system in which can be grown upon while still offering direction.

Right now as I myself look to create manor in which the meta game mechanic can be nicely fit on the core system, I would like any opinions others might have.
Regards, Seth
(ps. thanks for the advice on purchasing the game Ron/Callan it looks like something that will help me...when it gets here lol)

[Seth M. Drebitko]