Unnumbered

[xiombarg]

Okay, guys, here is an RPG I wrote that I'd like some commentary on. The idea here is to create a Narrativist/Simulationist game focused on war, without getting bogged down in the minuatae. It's in a very rough state; you'll even see notes to myself there.

http://www.io.com/~xiombarg/unnumbered.html

I'd also like feedback on the name; if you can think of a better one, I'm all ears. For those of you who have seen this system before as part of Rise Again, I'd like to call your attention to the addition (at the end of the document, before character advancement) of "the Rule of Gifts" as a meta-game mechanic. I'm particularly interested in what people think of that.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I skimmed it, so take this into consideration with my comments.

At the begining you've stated that the game is:

This is a game about war. However, unlike most RPGs about war, it has no interest in accurate combat, in simulating war down to the bullet. Instead, it is concerned with the story of war, the human cost of war: the ethical, moral, and emotional toll upon characters, the sort of thing one sees in a good war movie. Strategy and tactics are of secondary importance, if at all.

Yet, when you get into it, there are quite a few combat rules. In fact, the section is titled Combat, Damge, and Healing. Which sounds more-or-less like the typical combat stuff. You do have some different means for doing things, but I'll have to read more closely to comment better on this stuff.

But, the fact you have Damagae and Healing bothers me.

(WARNING: personal opinion on how to approach this same topic that may not be especially helpful to thing particular design)

I would avoid dealing with anything even remotely like hitpoints in this game as a means to record and measure physical damage. Way I see it, it doesn't really matter unless the character is either killed or sent home to give the remainder or their term of service from a hospitol bed otherwise, the wound is "of no great importance" aside from some kind of limited modifier, if that.

Rather than dealing with the minutae of combat, we can just assume that they're in a dangerous situation in which they might get killed. Then the player have to figure out a plan of action to get out of the situation and, possibly, win the particular battle. I keep thinking of Saving Private Ryan for this.

I see a fluxuating Luck score that is very important since the PC with the lowest Luck score is the one who has stuff happen to them. Once Luck goes below zero, then bad things happen (killed, wounded, etc) I see luck as a commondity that can be shared. Someone can give Luck to the player with low or no Luck to help them out and it's all about risking your luck. A really bad Luck roll can mean you get killed anyway, if you let it.

This is an interesting approach, to me, and I may flesh it out but I'm still working on that dungeon game I hijacked another thread with. If it's given you some ideas, then good.

[xiombarg]

Yet, when you get into it, there are quite a few combat rules. In fact, the section is titled Combat, Damge, and Healing. Which sounds more-or-less like the typical combat stuff. You do have some different means for doing things, but I'll have to read more closely to comment better on this stuff.

Please do. I think you will find this is not a "typical" combat system. It's tough to avoid having SOME rules about combat in a game about war.

Take a look at the Rule of Sacrifice, for example.

I would avoid dealing with anything even remotely like hitpoints in this game as a means to record and measure physical damage. Way I see it, it doesn't really matter unless the character is either killed or sent home to give the remainder or their term of service from a hospitol bed otherwise, the wound is "of no great importance" aside from some kind of limited modifier, if that.

I really don't see the system as at all hitpoint-like. However, I've added a couple of optional rules to address your issue. One makes the system more binary -- there's just Tagged and Down, without keeping track of the number of times you're Tagged. And the other is even more streamlined, without the Tagged system at all: If you are hit, you go Down.

I'm keeping them optional because I think some people will prefer the more detailed rules. I'm a big fan of using optional rules to all a group to get exactly the effect they want, while still playing the same game as other people.

Rather than dealing with the minutae of combat, we can just assume that they're in a dangerous situation in which they might get killed. Then the player have to figure out a plan of action to get out of the situation and, possibly, win the particular battle. I keep thinking of Saving Private Ryan for this.

There was some talk of this for the earlier version of this system. That's why I'm considering adding an optional system that allows you to do a "mission", and then move down to the combat system for when things go south.

I see a fluxuating Luck score that is very important since the PC with the lowest Luck score is the one who has stuff happen to them. Once Luck goes below zero, then bad things happen (killed, wounded, etc) I see luck as a commondity that can be shared. Someone can give Luck to the player with low or no Luck to help them out and it's all about risking your luck. A really bad Luck roll can mean you get killed anyway, if you let it.

An interesting idea, but not one I want to explore for this game. EVERYONE in a combat situation should have an equal chance of being hit and dying. I want to emphasize the brutal randomness of a battle.

This is an interesting approach, to me, and I may flesh it out but I'm still working on that dungeon game I hijacked another thread with. If it's given you some ideas, then good.

Well, I've added those optional rules I talked about, and there's some more text at the start of the Combat section to address your concerns. Also, I've renamed the Combat section "Battle and Aftermath", since, no offense, I think you were reacting less to the actual Combat section in your skim than to the title, which reminded you too much of D&D and countless other boring combat-oriented RPGs. I think "Battle and Aftermath" covers the feel I'm going for a little better.

I also added a paragraph about abstracting the actions of the NPCs, so as to speed up combat.

[Victor Gijsbers]

All quotes are from the game-text.

sample Descriptors for Guts include: "Steely" "Business-Like" "Gallows Humor"

Wouldn't it be more logical to include at least one example along the lines of 'Squeamish'? These all more or less point to the same thing.

A task with a +5 bonus is a very hard task, and a task with a -5 penalty is very difficult

This is probably a mistake. :)

Conferate solider

-> Confederate soldier

Subtract the number rolled from 21, and divide the resulting number by 4, rounding up. Or, if you prefer, take the degree of failure and divide by 4, rounding up.

I fail to see the difference between these two methods. Maybe you should change 'if you prefer' to 'equivalently'.

4 degrees of success = +1 bonus = -1 penalty = 4 degrees of failure

Four degrees of success is equal to four degrees of failure? I think this formula is more confusing than helpful.

Optional Rule: It may bother some GMs that when a Trait, after modification, is equal to 1, that if the check succeeds at all, then the result is always a critical success, or that the chance of critical success is always the same. In that case, use the following rule: If the result would indicate a critical success, it is not a sure thing, but merely a "threat" of critical success: the player must make another check against the raw, unmodified Trait. If that second check is successful, the check is a critical success. If the second check fails, the first check is treated an ordinary success.

I'd make this a rule which always applies, instead of optional. You don't want a character with 2 Guts shooting a critical success half the time they actually hit.

I think the rules about Lapses are a bit strange: if you have high responsiblity, it is very easy to gain more; if you have very low responsibility, it is very easy to lose more. After some time playing, all characters will have either very low or very high Responsibility, since the middle is unstable. This is not a problem if the number of Gift-points you gain during play is balanced to counter this, so you should take a good look at that balance.

By permanently losing two points of Responsibility, one can ensure a critical success on a Guts check and therefore a degree of success of 20

If there is ever player vs. player combat, this rule will be destructive to the extreme. Maybe you should state that it can only be used against NPCs. Or you could state that player vs. player combat is forbidden, although that would destroy part of the game. (For is John, with his 2 Responsibility, is about to kill a bunch of enemy children, and his mate Joe, with Responsibility 16, can only stop him by killing him... well, guess what is going to happen.)

The player adds a detail or situation to a scene that challenges another player's character in an ethical, moral, or emotional way.

What's the difference between 'ethical' and 'moral'?

The GM has the right to veto the detail, but is encouraged not to do so unless he has very good reason to do so.

Take away the last 'do so' and the sentence will look better.

Three more things:

1) I don't see why this is a game about war. It is a game about people in morally-challenging situations where they could lose control and become brutal, but war isn't the only situation where such a thing can happen. (What about a famine where there is too little food for everyone? The possibilities are endless.) It's your choice, but you could write down somewhere in the rules that it doesn't have to be about war.

2) I don't see why "Freedom implies responsibility" is the Premise of this game. To me, it seems that the Premise is "Can you hold on to decency in extreme situations?"

3) This game is only playable for people with roleplaying experience. Someone who doesn't know about RPGs will not understand your game, as you never define 'GM', and things like that. It's your choice whether you wish to keep it this way, of course.

[Andrew Martin]

It seems that "Instinct" is the inverse of "Responsibility". Then why not call it "Irresponsibility" instead? Or perhaps better to call it the one attribute: "Morality". Then the inverse can be called: "Immorality".

And perhaps better to just use the one attribute, "Ethics"? Because it's mentioned so many times here:

RESPONSIBILITY: This is arguably the most important Trait. Every character should have an ethical system, even if it's something as sketchy as "don't screw over your friends". The Responsibility Trait represents the ability to stick to one's guns, ethically speaking, under pressure, and not compromise.

To do unethical behaviour, simply roll over "Ethics" number.

[amiel]

First of all, get out of my head. This is so like something I had been working on.
Second, I like responsibility going against instinct...and responsibility being most unstable in the middle. I do however agree with the assertion about it being able to be used for a variety of stress situations; I think you should ponder that interpretation. This game (with some tweaking, rewriting, etc...) could be for combat zones what Sorcerer is for demon summoning.
(btw I know Sorcerer transcends demon summoning, this game could transcend combat zones).

[xiombarg]

Okay, I corrected all the typos and small errors Victor pointed out. I'm going to cover a bunch of people's posts in one post here, so bear with me.

I'd make this a rule which always applies, instead of optional. You don't want a character with 2 Guts shooting a critical success half the time they actually hit.

Frankly, this doesn't bug me at all, which is why I'm keeping it optional. But thanks for the suggestion. ;-)

I think the rules about Lapses are a bit strange: if you have high responsiblity, it is very easy to gain more; if you have very low responsibility, it is very easy to lose more. After some time playing, all characters will have either very low or very high Responsibility, since the middle is unstable. This is not a problem if the number of Gift-points you gain during play is balanced to counter this, so you should take a good look at that balance.

Hmmmm, this is a good point. I will have to think about this.

By permanently losing two points of Responsibility, one can ensure a critical success on a Guts check and therefore a degree of success of 20

If there is ever player vs. player combat, this rule will be destructive to the extreme. Maybe you should state that it can only be used against NPCs. Or you could state that player vs. player combat is forbidden, although that would destroy part of the game. (For is John, with his 2 Responsibility, is about to kill a bunch of enemy children, and his mate Joe, with Responsibility 16, can only stop him by killing him... well, guess what is going to happen.)

I don't see why this is disruptive. Yes, it means PCs can kill each other easily -- if one gets the drop on another one. I think this is realistic, and enhances the themes of the game. Also, remember that in the base rules Down is not equal to dead... At best, this guarantees the character goes Down.

The player adds a detail or situation to a scene that challenges another player's character in an ethical, moral, or emotional way.

What's the difference between 'ethical' and 'moral'?

I don't want to sound too pretentious here, but:

http://www.sandiego.edu/~maryw/Code/messages/184.html
http://www.paytonpapers.org/output/ESS0039_1.shtm
http://www.metaethics.org/mtm/doc0831.html

1) I don't see why this is a game about war. It is a game about people in morally-challenging situations where they could lose control and become brutal, but war isn't the only situation where such a thing can happen. (What about a famine where there is too little food for everyone? The possibilities are endless.) It's your choice, but you could write down somewhere in the rules that it doesn't have to be about war.

I like this idea, and I think I will do just that. I think I will keep the war bias, because that was the way the game was written, but I'll certainly add a section talking about its use outside of war, in other stressful situations.

2) I don't see why "Freedom implies responsibility" is the Premise of this game. To me, it seems that the Premise is "Can you hold on to decency in extreme situations?"

Hmmmmm. You're probably right about that. Now I need a pretty way to say that... ;-)

3) This game is only playable for people with roleplaying experience. Someone who doesn't know about RPGs will not understand your game, as you never define 'GM', and things like that. It's your choice whether you wish to keep it this way, of course.

I think you'll find that's not uncommon in games on the Forge. In this particular case, considering the mature themes covered, I'm not sure this is the best game to be someone's first experience with RPGs...

It seems that "Instinct" is the inverse of "Responsibility". Then why not call it "Irresponsibility" instead? Or perhaps better to call it the one attribute: "Morality". Then the inverse can be called: "Immorality".

I appreciate your feedback, but I like it the way it is. It works well for Pendragon, and I fell it works well here.

As for why it's called Responsibility, it's because I believe personal responsibility is the cornerstone of the game. And I think the game itself explains why "Instinct" is appropriate -- think "Killer Instinct". The idea here is it's Responsibility that seperates us from animals.

First of all, get out of my head. This is so like something I had been working on.

Heh, great minds think alike, eh? Feel free to use it for any project you might be working on.

Second, I like responsibility going against instinct...and responsibility being most unstable in the middle. I do however agree with the assertion about it being able to be used for a variety of stress situations; I think you should ponder that interpretation. This game (with some tweaking, rewriting, etc...) could be for combat zones what Sorcerer is for demon summoning.

So you see the "unstable middle" as more of a feature than a bug. I tend to agree. I think I will add an optional rule to cover Victor's issue, however. What do other people think?

Also, I appeciate the comparison to Sorcerer as the high compliment it is.

[Victor Gijsbers]

Frankly, this doesn't bug me at all, which is why I'm keeping it optional. But thanks for the suggestion. ;-)

Ok, it's your show. ;)

I don't see why this is disruptive. Yes, it means PCs can kill each other easily -- if one gets the drop on another one. I think this is realistic, and enhances the themes of the game. Also, remember that in the base rules Down is not equal to dead... At best, this guarantees the character goes Down.

So the character goes down - and the other player grabs an axe and splits his skull. No waking up from that kind of thing. Basically, this rule ensures that whoever acts first, wins.

I don't want to sound too pretentious here

You don't; I follow philosophy courses at University, so I can take it. ;) It's just that I'd never seen a definition of 'ethical' vs. 'moral'. (In fact, the first link you gave says the exact opposite from my Dutch dictionary, so I've got the feeling that the distinction is none too clear. O well.) Still, how could someone have an ethcial dilemma? This could only happen if he were busy thinking about philosophy. I'd say that using both 'moral' and 'ethical' is a bit too much.

Hmmmmm. You're probably right about that. Now I need a pretty way to say that... ;-)

Hehe. :)

I think you'll find that's not uncommon in games on the Forge.

I noticed. I'm not particulary fond of it though: why make a game that only a few people can even understand?

In this particular case, considering the mature themes covered, I'm not sure this is the best game to be someone's first experience with RPGs...

Mature themes are for mature people; whether someone can handle them is more a question of his maturity than of his experience with roleplaying.