Tamers: Gotta {pick one: capture, grab, acquire, snatch, get, obtain} em' all!

[whiteknife]

I've always been interested in the idea of an RPG that dealt with the genre of monster catching. A group of normal guys who happen to have a bunch of lethal monsters at their beck and call and just spend all day having battles (among other things) with them just intrigues me I guess (and if the popularity of such shows/games are any indication, I'm not alone). Now, no existing RPG that I know of is built to handle the kind of thing I'm looking for- namely, a game where you have a lot of monsters that obey you. (Well, there is pokethulu, but I'm not really looking for a joke game. There's also monsters and other childish things, but while that's a cool game it's not really what I'm going for either.) The problem is that almost every RPG is built around the assumption that you have one (or maybe two at most characters) at your disposal, and going against this assumption tends to either make the game a headache to keep track of or slows it way down.
In any case, I've been working on a game that lets you capture monsters and use them to battle other people who do that sort of thing. One of the major problems I've been having is how much complexity to have. I want it to be simple enough to run quickly (and more importantly, not to overload players who might have six monsters and a monster tamer) but on the other hand, I don't want it to be too free form (while I've got no problem with free form games, they tend to over simplify things, and one of the draws of the monster tamer genre is that each monster is somewhat unique.)

So i guess what I'm asking is, how do you get diversity without adding to much complexity? I'm open to anything at this point: I've been playing with the ideas of dice pools, point based, and a couple other things, but nothing really seems to be getting me that blend of easy and diverse.
Any ideas you guys might have as to mechanics or whatever would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

"Diversity without complexity" is the essence of a whole field of game design. I suggest checking out any of the games by the German designer Reiner Knizia. They aren't RPGs; they're competitive traditional games, but they really illustrate the principle you're aiming toward. His games are famous for seeming a little simplistic when you first read and play them, but then later revealing how tactical and subtle they can be once all the players have had some experience with them.

Modestly, I suggest that demon design in my own game, Sorcerer, is built on similar principles, although I don't rate myself with Knizia. The idea is not to describe the colorful effects of every imaginable demon ability, but rather to provide a relatively short list of mechanics effects - you come up with the notions about what your demon can do, and then choose any combination of effects that adds up to that. Therefore the game can produce "demon types" that I, as author, never even imagined.

That concept - that abilities or powers should be built by combining mechanics-based options and adding on the description yourself - is called "effects-first design," and not everyone likes it ... but the people who do, love it. It was pioneered all the way back in 1980 in the first version of Champions. Some interesting applications in later games include the magic system in Arrowflight and The Riddle of Steel.

Best, Ron

[JohnG]

First of all I think this could be an incredibly fun RPG idea.  There's so many RPGs with pets and animal companions where the damn things are utterly useless, it also lends itself to a wide audience as it's easy enough to have a children's pokemon campaign while someone elsewhere is running the same setting in a far darker light, of course that all depends on if you're talking a generic multi-setting system or a game with its own setting.  Either way it could be done and it could work well I think.

Secondly I agree with Ron, get out of my head Ron.  Not only does giving mechanics that allow people to define their monsters on their own give you the possibility for enormous diversity, it also keeps things simple and doesn't flood your book with a million powers or premade monsters.  I own Sorceror actually and the demon design was one of the things I found most interesting, if you don't have it you might want to check it out just to get the gears grinding in your noggin even if you have something far more complex in mind.  I really don't know any other RPGs with a minion creation system or I'd point you to them.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh yeah, I just remembered - Dead of Night has a lot of pre-made creatures, but it also provides a system for making up new ones that is quite effective. In the last game I played, one of the monsters (made up by someone else) was a vaguely-defined mass of nasty skittering things that the mind's eye (or screen view) never quite saw, ever. The rules worked great for it.

Best, Ron

[whiteknife]

Thanks for the comments. It's true that trying to achieve diversity without complexity is the focus of much design, but that's because it's important, especially in a game where one of the main draws is having a diverse group of monsters. I've been debating for a while whether or not to use effects first design, but by now I've pretty much decided on it, for reasons such as the ones strongbadmun stated, like not having to have a ton of pre-made monsters and powers. I'll be sure to check out Reiner Kniza's stuff (I'm a big board game fan anyways) and I've been thinking about getting sorcerer for a while now, and now I'm pretty much over the top on it.

Anyways, if anyone else has any thoughts or comments, especially if they've played an RPG or other game with a good creature design system I might be able to draw inspiration from, I'd appreciate it if you posted.

[JohnG]

umm ok well it's not monster creation but White Wolf's Aberrant and Guardians of Order's BESM (Big Eyes Small Mouth) both have creation systems I enjoyed, one for superheros and one for basically anything you can imagine.  They might be a bit more complicated than you want, (BESM char creation takes up like half the book) but they're another thing for you to peek at if you're so inclined.

[First Oni]

i guess the complexity will come from how many monsters a single character could control during a single fight. Pokemon and other games like it are interesting with their dynamics, as each character has a bunch of monsters, but only uses one or two at any given time. Figuring out how you want the fights to flow up front with help you with your designing later one. If you're looking for two characters to have dozens of monsters between them fighting at a time, then that's why too complex.

Hope that jars some cool ideas!

-Oni

[JohnG]

Oni makes a good point, however if your intention is something of a tactical RPG with minis and grid maps then you could concievably have a whole lot more monsters in play than if you're just sitting at a table with character sheets describing everything.  Either way it's really not a matter of the game's design as it's a matter of the individual gaming group's preference.  He could say "Tamers only use one monster at a time" and a game group could say "nah, let's use them all and go nuts".  Another question is whether the characters are combatants too or just their monsters?  Are we talking pokemon or would the Tamer be cracking skulls too, and if so are the monsters way stronger than a human or are they about equivalent?  This kind of thing has sooooo many yes or no questions to go over.

[First Oni]

Exactly! And there are so many different ways to approach this type of project. I'll be following this thread closely, cause i can't wait to see what becomes of it. :-)

-Oni

[whiteknife]

Glad to see the interest!
Anyways, as to how many monsters a player could control at a time, Strongbadmun hit it pretty much on the head. While I'd probably have the default be each player having only one or two out at a time (although they might have many more), obviously I can't stop a gaming group from going wild and sending out all of them (in fact, I'd probably encourage it if that's what you wan to do). Depending on whether the group playing is more into tactics or if they like playing on a more cerebral level (also depending on how complex they want things to be, since running four guys at once is obviously more complex than running one or two) they can make some decisions themselves, although I'd say what assumptions should be used to obtain certain levels of complexity, each gaming group could also tailor it pretty easily to they own preferences.
As to the tamers themselves wading in and beating down on monsters "the old fashioned way" that would be something I'd include as optional, as it depends mostly on the kind of campaign you're trying to run. A game set in a pokemon-esque modern day world with kids and their monsters probably wouldn't have the teenagers and ten year olds duking it out with fire breathing frogs, but a game set in a fantasy setting with the characters being sorcerers who capture the monsters of the realm to go on adventures would be lacking a whole lot if you couldn't bust out a sword and go in yourself every once in a while. But again, if the group playing wants to give their modern day kids guns and let them have at it then they're obviously free to do so, but that does change the dynamics of the game somewhat, and I'd probably give some advice on how to handle that situation. (So that every battle doesn't end on round one when the monster mauls the tamer after running around their monster.)
Anyways, I'm still in the relatively early design process so any ideas or feedback would still be much appreciated!

[Will]

A thought on the control part of the idea:

You could have a command skill/stat/pool/something that allowed you to issue a limited number of commands in combat. This would make one on one fights into action/counteraction duels while allowing for less subtle masses of pets duking it out.

[Krippler]

Why will they fight?

I was kind of intruiged by the game Pokémon: The Evil Inside which is an action based game where all the pokémon in the pokémon world has been infected with a virus that makes them rabid so humanity is in a full scale war with them. Most of the game is about going around shooting them to gory death with your M4.

So what about conflicts having different seriousness + lots of social constraints. Like the codes of duelling in the real world, if you break them it's a huge shame (since duels are all about honour in the first place). Like, the civil duel is just having the monsters beat each other out cold or drawing blood or something but out in the wilderness you fight mercilessly against the wild beasts and poachers and bandits don't have any qualms about trying to go around the monster and killing the tamer outright.

[Ron Edwards]

That is a spot-on question.

whiteknife, I think that's the core to your whole design.

Best, Ron

[whiteknife]

Why they fight is indeed one of the big reasons that I wanted to do the game in the first place. The source material for monster tamer shows is usually aimed at the young kids market and as such the constant fighting is hand waved away as "for fun" or "they're just unconscious" despite what would really happen which wouldn't exactly be kid friendly. Indeed, social constraints are a big thing, since some serious restrictions need to be placed on someone to get them to hold back in any fight, even in one where they themselves aren't personally fighting. I've thought of a default setting for my game that I hope allows players to address (or ignore, if desired) some of these interesting issues. The setting goes something like this:

At first, everything was just a game. Kids of all ages were caught up in "monster mania", thrilling to the adventures of their favorite monsters and buying up all the merchandise they could get their little hands on. Then it turned out that the monsters were real. At first, this seemed great- after all, who wouldn't be happy to find out that the action packed adventures of their favorite toys, shows, and games were real? The kids, having extensive knowledge of the monsters habits, grew to be friends with the monsters and they had fun adventures and playful battles with their buddies. That didn't last long of course, as the idea of thousands of powerful slave beasts appearing from nowhere excited military agents across the world just as much as it excited the kids. Flashing forward to after the long and gruesome war that engulfed the planet soon after, the world stands much changed. The remaining population of the world is forced to flee to the few safe zones left after the war, but space within these zones is limited and even though the war is over, the people left are no less argumentative or violent than they once were.

Afraid of the assuredly apocalyptic results of another great war, the various nations propose a new idea in order to settle conflicts: a massive tournament of sorts, where children representing each nation are to travel the land in order to compete against each other in order to determine which nations will be favored in various disputes. Of course, such matters are not all fun and fair play, and despite a number of rules enforcing balance amongst the competition, many slip through the cracks and fall prey to "unlawful competition". Even if everyone you meet in the "tournament" plays by its rules, brigands, wild monsters, and monster hating religious sects abound that never even agreed to fight fair in the first place...

That's not the entire setting, but I think it gets the picture across. And hey, if you don't like it, I don't really plan on doing much if any setting specific content so you could set your game in whatever world you wanted.

As always, I appreciate feedback, and anyone who has comments or suggestions on the general idea, the setting, the rules, or whatever should post.

[Ron Edwards]

That's well and good for the in-setting justification of why these monster fights happen at all, but it's not quite the answer to the question as I saw it. Let me re-phrase and see what you think.

My version of the question is: why do these particular individuals fight? In other words, if I'm playing a character, what are some of the personal situations that could have led to being one of these kids, rather than just monster-less any ol' kid?

There are hundreds of conceivable answers, ranging all the way from "a monster picked me and I still have no idea why," to "only special kids who've undergone intensive training and have deep emotional drives to fight." What I'm saying is not to advocate any particular end or part of this spectrum. I am saying that it's probably a good idea for you to narrow it down a little, in terms of character creation.

Any thoughts on that?

Best, Ron