Dungeons and Discourse

[Options]

Hello!

I registered at these forums a while ago with the intent of posting here and hopefully getting some feedback on an RPG that's been in the works for about a year now, but has only just been really shaping up.  It's a concept that involves a fantasy world that, instead of revolving around magic or technology, instead revolves around metaphysics, evangelism, thought experiment, ethics, metaphor, and other such philosophical terms.  Classes come from various well-respected schools of thought and religion in our world; Monsters are caricatures of those who become consumed by their concepts.  I'd say more, but it's probably best if I just point you towards the comic that started it all, which, if you read no more, I would highly recommend to you regardless:

http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_031.htm

Humour is also a prerequisite!

Ever since this, some of the Dresden Codak forum community has been slowly putting together this RPG, which the creator himself of the comic has started to consider publishing.  We just released our Alpha Manual, which includes a little over ten pages of mechanics (which have been somewhat refined) about 20 Classes and 12 Common skillls (which are mostly unrefined, but are constantly being generated) and various other items of interest and humour, as well.

As the spearhead of the project, I'm no RPG expert, so I was hoping to get some good peer and professional advice here, especially since this might one day be used to, you know, make money.  You can check out the very first, somewhat ramshackle Alpha manual here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?2zppmgyevpj

There are other formats available at our forums, which you can also head to if you'd like to drop us a line or have an idea for more content: http://forums.koalawallop.net/viewforum.php?f=10

I'm mostly looking for insight into the mechanics at this point, but all pointers are welcome.  I'm also looking for playtesters to take this home and give it a try in real life, as we've been running most of our tests via mIRC.  Pointers towards good sources of inspiration are also welcome (But yes, for the record, I do know about Planescape!).  Thank you in advance!

[Callan S.]

Hi options (can we use your real name as we work?),

How do you imagine a session of play ending? Like the comic? Where the game world events aren't really resolved, rather they are the build up for a self referential joke. Or some other way?

Perhaps the best way to determine the quality of the mechanics, is to determine how you want to end things and then test whether they get you there. Or is the priority that the game keeps going on and on, with interesting content as a support to that?

[Options]

Hello, Callan!  You folks can call me Sean, if you like.

Currently, a single instance of the game is indeed structured to be completed in one or more sessions.  Our last one ran for about eight 2-3 hour sessions (via mIRC, so somewhat slower than usual).   There's some room for wiggling there, but when all the characters complete/can no longer complete their Goals and the DM is done with any story or area he wants to lead them through, that's when it's done. I've tried to extend the scope somewhat from the comic so that you could consider the comic a particularly interesting segment of normal play, but not a whole session.

Usually, I imagine an ideal session either ending with some large fight or plot point, with jokes that are both provided by the DM and content and improvised by the character players.  The humour thus far is contained in how this is all achieved.  I've been getting some pretty good results from the two trial runs I've managed (One finale involved a high-powered Nihilist being forced to submit in honrable combat under mind-control via the Existentialist Gaze, the other a Neoplatonist who underwent Henosis and was eventually destroyed by a proton torpedo crafted from his own mini-dimension using Pseudoscience and Physics .)  The game could go on and on, but my own philosophy is that it's better to chop it up, and that's the point of little measures such as DM Amusement (a damage addition to certain attacks) and the Treatise-earning system through Goals - they make sure that things are somewhat compartmentalized by the DM.  This ensures there is both a light at the end of the tunnel, and some fun to be had along the way by players.

Admittedly, though, I've usually had to BS a little myself as a DM to keep things interesting, particularly in the second example.  This is fine by me, but I do want to make it clear to other DMs that they are going to have to be flexible, too, to make this game work well.  I haven't really been able to think of a good, psychologically reinforcing way to do this yet.

[Callan S.]

Hi Sean,

How did you make the end interesting? Could a ruleset be constructed to achieve that ending? Also, does the GM determine when a character goal is complete or cannot be completed?

[Options]

Sorry for the extended delay in replying.  Since I'm just getting warmed up, I'll start with the last question, which is the easiest - yes, the GM does currently know when a character Goal is complete, although the player themselves will implicitly know that, as well, since they created the Goal.  Character Goals are kept secret, though, so other players may not recognize when they have been achieved or are being worked towards.  The GM does have most of the control over when the scenario ends, however, and that is when goals can no longer be completed.

As for making the end interesting, that's a tough one.  Both were characterized by some rather abnormal gameplay that, while I (the GM) might have suppressed it earlier in the game, seemed more suited for grand, scenario-ending battles.  In the case of the Neoplatonist, two of the players began (after some unsuccessful attempts at normal combat) to instead tear up the scenery surrounding the enemy and turning it into weaponry (which was where the proton torpedo came from), whilst the other two continued fighting the enemy more conventionally using an attack strategy that seemed to work well, if slowly.

It has occurred to me that this could be achieved without such little infractions of the rules or the social contract if I implemented some kind of ruleset that allowed a player-character to try to gain narrative control one time or so per storyline, at his discretion.  He'd probably have to win a conflict with the GM for it, perhaps involving a carefully defined argument over ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology, with the victor being the one who wins the vote of the non-participants.  The desired change in the story would be laid down before the argument began, and the discussion would be timed to keep it from dragging on more than, say, five or ten minutes.

[Callan S.]

Hi again Options,

yes, the GM does currently know when a character Goal is complete, although the player themselves will implicitly know that, as well, since they created the Goal.

There seems to be a large opportunity here for the player and GM to have really different ideas of when a goal ends, wouldn't you say?

*snip*The GM does have most of the control over when the scenario ends, however, and that is when goals can no longer be completed.

As for making the end interesting, that's a tough one.  Both were characterized by some rather abnormal gameplay that, while I (the GM) might have suppressed it earlier in the game, seemed more suited for grand, scenario-ending battles.

Suppresion? In terms of that, could you have a look at this post and its thread and see if the techniques described are familiar to you?

It has occurred to me that this could be achieved without such little infractions of the rules or the social contract if I implemented some kind of ruleset that allowed a player-character to try to gain narrative control one time or so per storyline, at his discretion.  He'd probably have to win a conflict with the GM for it, perhaps involving a carefully defined argument over ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology, with the victor being the one who wins the vote of the non-participants.  The desired change in the story would be laid down before the argument began, and the discussion would be timed to keep it from dragging on more than, say, five or ten minutes.

I'd suggest it isn't gaining control to narrate. It's just talking. To genuinely gain control, someone else has to have lost control. Your mechanic would need to lay down what control the GM is going to give up. A common method here is to determine what (in a particular circumstance) the player wants to occur, what the GM wants to occur, then use an unbiased mechanic to determine who wins. However, this is particularly unsupportive of 'I had an ending in mind even before play started' GM playstyle.

I think it'd be really good to read that post and thread linked to above

[Options]

Thanks, Callan - I've read it, but unfortunately I've had other things to attend to on my own forum, so I haven't had a chance to respond properly or start thinking immediately about its relevance (It's a lot to process, especially since Ron seems to suggest moving away from that idea of things, which I can at least partially understand off the cuff).  Good news is, we're putting together a Power 19 now, which I hope to post on these forums as well once we've got a first draft.  After that, I'll probably be able to talk more coherently about conflict resolution mechanics in Dungeons and Discourse again.

There seems to be a large opportunity here for the player and GM to have really different ideas of when a goal ends, wouldn't you say?

Not really, under the current mechanic.  The completion level of the Goals are judged by the GM (who is intended to be more of a moderator and facilitator, as well as the default director of play) and rewarded at the end of a scenario.  I suppose what I meant by "A player knows when it is complete" is more along the lines of "A player knows when his character is pretty much in the clear."  Not only that, but it's not even a simple "Yes or No" answer.  The characters -  thus far, anyway - are awarded extra Treatise based on how well they complete their Goals, in the eyes of the GM, on a ranking of about 1-4 (give or take 1 on the top end of the scale, depending on how difficult or complex the task is).  The Goal is negotiated actively between player and GM prior to play, so all in all they tend to be pretty definitive.  Sorry I didn't explain this better before.

[David B. Goode]

Options,

Just wanted to chime in here. This seems like a very interesting game. It sort of blends Dork Tower with Frasier - which, to me, sounds like a lot of fun. That said, it is high-brow, which I think will give it great appeal to some, but much less to others.

What are your thoughts on marketing? Do you plan on a web release or print?

David

[Options]

Thanks for the praise, Dave!  It's good to know there are other people out there who think this idea has potential.  Allow me to just say that there's a lot more than you think out there, if the popularity of the webcomic is anything to go by.  Its ever-growing popularity is one of the reasons we've been going a year so far and haven't lost steam yet.

In response to your question, though:  I do this for free, currently, and I have been since the beginning.  College-plus age RPG enthusiasts who also like philosophy can be a little hard to find, so it's likely we'll always offer a dressed-down version like the one we have for our playtesters for free, and our goals, institutionally, aren't any higher than that. 

However, if we do start offering the book for money, it's liable to get a thorough dressing-up (art and formatting) by the artist of the comic, Aaron Diaz, and to be sold in print through his own website.  (Pointers for good printing companies are welcome.)  That's the goal for most of us who have been sticking with the project.

Despite that and my fancy talk, we're pretty much solely grassroots.  I know you can't undervalue or put too much foresight into this kind of stuff, but from my perspective our main needs are hands, playtesters, and exposure right now, before we start considering profit.

[David B. Goode]

That sounds smart to me. Solid progression toward the demand. And a book with art from the comics - or at least in the same style - would give a nice sense of feel and cohesion.

As I've thought about, most gamers I know are pretty intelligent. This probably has a wider appeal than I was considering.

[Callan S.]

Hi Sean (sorry I didn't use your name last post, there was a time gap and I forgot),

Thanks, Callan - I've read it, but unfortunately I've had other things to attend to on my own forum, so I haven't had a chance to respond properly or start thinking immediately about its relevance (It's a lot to process, especially since Ron seems to suggest moving away from that idea of things, which I can at least partially understand off the cuff).  Good news is, we're putting together a Power 19 now, which I hope to post on these forums as well once we've got a first draft.  After that, I'll probably be able to talk more coherently about conflict resolution mechanics in Dungeons and Discourse again.

Do you have any problems with the game so far? Anything you want to work on? What that link described often has recurring problems. There's no suggestion of moving away from it because it's morally wrong and a 'bad thing'. It's not a bad thing, but it's usually pretty predictable and...well, uninteresting.

[ninja88penguin]

(One finale involved a high-powered Nihilist being forced to submit in honrable combat under mind-control via the Existentialist Gaze, the other a Neoplatonist who underwent Henosis and was eventually destroyed by a proton torpedo crafted from his own mini-dimension using Pseudoscience and Physics .)

YES! This sounds like the best game ever!

Name's JLee. I just wanted to chime in and say I'm a huge fan of the comic, and one of my best friends has a print of the comic in question. Now, it's late and I have work tomorrow but I will give this manual a read and see what the real life Dungeons and Discourse looks like. I'm personally a newbie to RPGing and tend to be more focused on uncomplicated streamlined systems that keep rules to a minimum and storytelling to a maximum. Keep that in mind when I come back with some input.

Still, I am excited beyond all belief that this exists.

[Options]

Callan, no sweat.  And thanks, 88!  Unfortunately, the game is still rather rules-heavy from the player side.  I'm working to remediate that now, though, as it's already become evident that no-one's particularly interested in a really complex strategic game.  That's actually the main problem I've with the conflict system, though, in a nutshell.  But before I remodel that, I need to take a look at the theory of it, which is why I'm here.

Anyways, I've started meditating on what Dungeopns and Discourse means in terms of what Ron was trying to say back there, and this is my answer so far.

Since Dungeons and Discourse is a philosophy game, it almost certainly needs to be all about the what-for rather than the what - a near-total inversion from what Ron described and later put into those terms.  The tough part is, I need to achieve this while sticking to a few principles, mandated by the original concept:

1. There must be humour and good roleplaying, the latter a more complicated function than the former, and thus, my goal.  (Ask any actor.  Comedy is hard!)  This is one place I see my game departing from previous stuff - it's looking to promote a specific sort of roleplay, while still having some possibly serious undertones.

2. It needs to fit the overall philosophical/historical theme as well as possible, while demanding only a small minimum of actual philosophical knowledge from the player.  Not only that, it needs to transcend era in this way: even though a fist-century Platonist would have no chance against any modern philosopher in reality, he needs to be given a fighting chance here.  That's probably where dice will come in, since chance is, after all, the great equalizer.

3. It needs to parody the old strategic content of 1980's games and conventional videogames of the same flavor in some major ways.  As I didn't manage that too well in the first edition, I instead gave it some roots in old gameplay.  This worked, but gave it all the problems Ron has described, including a sort of GM-centrism I am highly opposed to.  My aim is now to humourously emulate real philosophical debate, with the GM as the moderator (rather than the master storyteller, as he was before), while still managing this.

Naturally, I'm leaving out the idea of simplicity and good, uncomplicated design, because that's really a given, anyway.

So naturally the question is, how?  How does one turn a game like this on its ear, and still improve it all around?  And how can that be done while actually improving upon, even moving beyond, what's come before? (See: Donjon, Shadow of Yesterday (to a degree), and DitV, of course.)

Here's a thought I've had so far on the matter:

The player and character, I think, are going to need to be be as closely aligned to each other's beliefs and opinions as possible in Dungeons and Discourse  This seems necessary given this model, because each needs to have an idea what to do in a given situation in order to progress towards their previously determined philosophical goals.  The less dissonance between the two, the more time the player has to invent good jokes and generally roleplay well, thus satisfying Goal Number One.  Not only that, but that player will be able to connect to their character well, thus heightening their own enjoyment as well as others.

Yet, there's a conflict that arises there.  Since we're also trying to accomplish Number Two, there needs to be some definite division between player/character types for sake of theme and variation of color.  How can that be provided for, without messing up the unity of character and player?  How can you slot a person into a keyhole like that, while making the minimum no cuts at all?  My previous approach to this was to merely provide as many possibilities as possible, but I'll be damned if that doesn't make for an unwieldy manual.

Number Three, applied to this, means that there should need to be some GM-provided, decorative clutter - just a touch of "what".   Although, that's more an artistic touch than anything, so it may be that the best answer to that is that the clutter can be completely brushed away if a player so wills it, evoking the concept of a debate gone off-topic, and thus beyond the control of a moderator (the GM).

I look forward to your replies!

[Callan S.]

Hi Sean,

I'm just going to look at one of your goals to start off with - good roleplay. I'm going to suggest something you can actually measure and physically implement, as opposed to the nebulous idea of 'good'. That thing is uncertainty. With the good roleplay you've experienced, what would you say is behind it? Did you know what the player was going to do ten minutes before he did it, or did it come as a wonderful surprise? Further, would you say sometimes the great thing about the roleplay is not what happened, but that it just come straight out of left field unexpectedly?

Just briefly, uncertainty can be shaped, so only a scope of actions are possible. Shooting a granny and stuffing her in a dumpster can be made outside the scope, helping the granny cross the road whilst pick pocketing her can be made to be one of the possible range of actions inside the scope. Or perhaps more debate themed, argue her out of owning a pet and crossing the road without it - just cause the character hates dogs, really. What a bastard! What a surprise!

That's what I'd suggest looking into - I also think it helps with some of the other goals you listed. Otherwise, personally I don't know what to do about good roleplay - it's too undefinable and murky to me.

[was_fired]

Heh I hadn't planned on joining the boards yet, but after starting to read through that system (just the monsters and items so far) I have to say that it looks brilliant.  The fact that I'm a fan of Dresden Codak (I read a ton of webcomics it falls into the Rare Updates, High Quality folder).  Heh after starting to read through that I have to say I'm a bit peevish of putting off my D&D alternative here in a week or two, but hey good designers will lead to good advice or just polite ignoring.  I can't promise to run a test game of this without going over the conflict resolution systems heavily, but I do feel the need to say that it's hilarious.