New take on directoral mechanics

[Paganini]

Okay, everyone knows where this is coming from right? So, skip the intro, on to the nuts & bolts! :)

Play Conventions

The mechanics are used to resolve conflicts that involve a character. All such conflicts should be initiated with statements of intent rather than result. The mechanics determine the result of the conflict, as well as the right to narrate.

For example, "Jim Bob blows the Zombie away with his shotgun!" is not the way to do it. Instead say "Jim Bob jerks his shotgun up and pulls the trigger!"

Once the statement of intent has been made the mechanics may be invoked by either the GM or the player. If the mechanics are not invoked the right to narrate stays with the GM. When the mechanics are invoked there are three potential outcomes:

Success + Narration - If the player wins the roll he may narrate the character's success as if he were the GM.

Success + Karma - Allternatively, the player may opt to add a point to his Karma pool, forfeiting the right to narrate. In this case the GM narrates the character's success, but may add additional complications to the character's situation if he chooses.

Failure - The GM narrates the character's failure.

Mechanics

The mechanics of the game are quite simple. Each character is defined by several traits. Each trait costs a number of points equal to its rating. Characters are created with 15 points. Any leftover points go into the player's Karma pool.

Whenever the mechanics are invoked the GM will set a target number for the conflict ranging from 1 to 3. The higher the number, the easier the conflict is to win. The player may add any one trait to the target number, as long as he can offer a reasonable explanation for doing so.

The player may also add up to three points from his Karma pool to the target number. These points are returned to the Karma pool if the roll is a success, but are lost if the roll fails.

Once the target number is finalized roll 1d10. A result equal to or lower than the target number indicates success.

Example: Rebar the Barbarian has Thews of Goodly Strength (3). His player calls for a roll and says: "Rebar desires to fell the massive oak tree here, forming a bridge so that he might cross this trecherous body of water!"

The GM thinks that this is pretty tricky (the tree is quite large) sets the target number at 1. Rebar's player really wants the tree to fall, so he stakes 3 Karma points (the most possible) on the conflict. The final target number is 7 (Rebar's Goodly Strength, the 3 Karma points, and the GM's single point).

If the player rolls a 7 or less, he has the choice of narrating the scene, or of adding to his Karma pool (letting the GM narrate and possibly add complications).

If the player rolls an 8 or more, the GM narrates the scene.

[Buddha Nature]

Sounds like a points + target number version of The Pool, though with some limiting factors.  It seems like a good mechanic though.  Can the players do anything else with those karma points?

-Shane

[Paul Czege]

Nathan,

You absolutely need to credit The Pool. And you should probably ask permission from James before you go forward with a game design based on the mechanics.

Paul

[Paganini]

If this ever goes anywhere beyond just an idea I kick around on these forums, I will indeed credit the Pool most heartily. :) However, let me be very clear that this is *not* a ripoff of the Pool like the Fantasy Heartbreakers are a ripoff of D&D. This is a game that's intended to address the same ideas as the Pool but with mechanics that work to my taste as the mechanics of the Pool ultimately do not.

The mechanics here are a distillation to the simplest form of many percentile <= target systems that I've tried to mutate to address the same ideas as those in the Pool. In fact, they bear much closer resemblance to my Cornerstone than they do the Pool. (Cornerstone was Trait + d10 vs. target, while this is d10 vs. Trait + Target.)

For those of you who don't know, I've been going thourgh a Directoral Revolution over the last few weeks. Director Stance is cool stuff, and I've been reading games that deal explicitly with it. The Pool is probably the most overt of these, but I dislike the math for an umber of reasons. While fiddling with calculators and percentages I started thinking how much easier it would be if I could simply use a d10 or a d20. From there the modification of the Cornerstone mechanics was a simple step.

I'd like to ultimately move the design of this game to the point where character success / failure is divorced from the narrative distribution mechanics. That is, I'd like to see players winning the right to say what happens, and then using that to narrate how their characters fail. I'm not sure how to do this just yet, but I'm working on it. :)

[Ben Morgan]

My group (I have one now!!) is just beginning to discover the joys of directorial power (more on this in Actual Play).

[Bankuei]

I'd like to ultimately move the design of this game to the point where character success / failure is divorced from the narrative distribution mechanics. That is, I'd like to see players winning the right to say what happens, and then using that to narrate how their characters fail. I'm not sure how to do this just yet, but I'm working on it. :)

Check Otherkind and Draconic.  Both great examples of what you're speaking of.

Chris

[Paul Czege]

Hey Nathan,

In fact, they bear much closer resemblance to my Cornerstone than they do the Pool.

The difference between your mechanics and The Pool is that you keep the number of dice fixed, and scale the target number. The Pool keeps the target number fixed, and scales the number of dice. In all other respects, most significantly the manner and circumstances in which the two systems share directorial power, the gambling of Karma and what can be gained from it, and all choices facing the player related to managing effectiveness, they are the same.

That is, I'd like to see players winning the right to say what happens, and then using that to narrate how their characters fail.

That would be interesting.

Paul