PsychoSys Game Engine

[Hasimir0]

Hi, this is my first post here
I'll try not to do a mess, but feel free to correct me whenever I say something stupid or wrong ^_^
And obviously: pardon my bad english.

So...
The PsychoSys project is a pet design of mine that is, basically, a universal set of rules.
My intent with it was to reward/stimulate better descriptions and more involved participation, but without going too far away from the familiar ground of what we (italians) are starting to call Traditional* rpgs.
With time and playtest I started to feel the need to obtain more things out of my games...I wanted to find a way to shape the play activity in a different way...
Long story short, I intend to make the PsychoSys take a big step away from traditional games and evolve into something more meaningful, more Indy (or New Wave as we say).

The basics: what do I want?
I want a generic/universal rule-set.
The Solar System is a very good example of what I would like to end up with
It is great, but not exactly what I need...and I have a hitch for game designing...so I'm going to develop something mine (shamelessly stealing good ideas from wherever I can ^_^ )

I want for the game to present the players with meaningful choices, and to help them "feel" the psychology of their PCs.
I'm through with games that tell you how the PC should feel and then do nothing (or not enough) to turn this information into something meaningful for the player.
I want psychology, both in a personal (loves, hates, fears, desires, etc) and in a clinical (madness, alienation, etc) way, to be an important part of the game.
I want the players to feel tension, and attachment, and to care ... I want them to believe in the "dream", so to speak.

I need the players to be their characters and have only limited (very limited) power over things that are not strictly their own PC or very closely PC-related.
This is because telling a story as an author is not seen, by my players, as satisfying.
I want to give them tools to "expand" their scope if they ever wish to, but it has not to be something they have to do.

The rules should help in portraying the scene in a dynamic and "digestible" way...I mean...the usual conflict resolution where the winner describes all the scene in a single narrative block is "not ok".
The way Dogs handles it is far more like what I need...allowing for the scene to develop blow-by-blow.

I want the rules to be somewhat crunchy without actually being crunchy
I mean...my players and I appreciate light and non-intrusive rules, but too much abstraction is not fun and breaks the "dream" as much as cumbersome mechanics.
Players should feel like they are doing "tactical" choices, and they get rewarded for "exploiting" the features of scene (landscape, information, strategy, thinking out of the box, etc).
The difference between a tool and another tool (be it weapons or armor or informations) should be somehow represented...physical combat allows for the more obvious examples of that: a knife should be somehow different, in game, than an assault-rifle

I also need some way to handle consumables, like ammunitions and other supplies.
In a conflict the "shooting" is quite abstract...even "one action" is more than just the single sequence of muscle-movements used in most Task resolutions...so I'm not sure how to handle things like ammunition shortages or armour depletion in a satisfying way.

*(Traditional intended as in games like Vampire, GURPS, Shadowrun, and all those that implicitly or explicitly support the use of System-Zero**, as opposed to New Wave*** games, which forbid its use.)

**(where System-0 is: the only true rule is the Meister ... for clarity in our discussions some started to use this term instead of the more common "Rule Zero" or "Golden Rule" because it made more sense in a Lumpley-Principle way ... and it raised less confusion in discussions )

***(term used by some to indicate "Indy" games, which only recently are starting to rise public attention [and endless flames] here in Italy ... the switch from Indy to New Wave came mostly because the term "Indy" in our country is used for other things, and because many people while seeing these games as "different" not always [almost never] concur that the System-0 even exists...have I mentioned endless discussions that usually end up in flames? )

...
...
...

This is more or less what I'm aiming for.
Let's see what I have put together so far.

...

I edited the post because it was too long...the draft of the game is now a pdf that can be downloaded from HERE.

...

And that's what I've got so far
Considering the objectives that I stated at the beginning, are there...
Comments?
Suggestions?
Ideas?
Critics?
Doubts?
Gummy Bears?

[Hasimir0]

mmm...so many readers, so few posters (actually zero ) ... I hope someone comments sooner or later ^_^
But I'm not here to complain, I'm here to add an idea to the basic draft posted above:

weapons could work like this:

P > R ---> Full HIT
P = R ---> Partial HIT
P < R ---> no effect

What are HITs?
Basically I'm thinking of representing Roots as "dots" and "squares".
Like:

You have Wert 5?
It should look like this
o o o o o o o o o o
L L L L L L L L L L

You color as many dots as your Root points are, so you can easily see how many squares you have available (here, crudely represented by the L signs )

When you BURN a point of Root you put an asterisk in the first empty square...a big asterisk... the sum of these signs " / " and " \ " and " | ".
When you USE a point of Root you put an X in the first empty square.

So, a HIT is just a partial X...a slash...a " \ ".
A partial HIT is one slash.
A full HIT is two slashes...meaning an X...meaning it counts as a used up pont.
HITs work by worsening your condition, like this:

the affected square is empty --> then slashed ---> then Xed (Used) ---> then asterisked (burned)

This allows me to introduce a new type of action: the SHIELD action (or some other name).
Basically you have to describe some kind of defensive or fall-back action, instead of an attack or anything else useful.
This still earns you +1 Progress as usual, but the fiction takes on a different road ... you are not "pushing forward" any more, you are intentionally defending, getting to cover, babbling out justifications, hiding, etc.

Mechanically this allows you to use up a SHIELD to affect your squares.
An empty square gets a little circle into it...any HIT will remove it, but it won't have further effects...so to cause any damage to a Shielded square an opponent will have to score 2 hits...one to remove the SHIELD and one to wound you.
A Shield can also delete a partial hit (deleting a single Slash) ... but in this way the square affected is just "healed" and not "shielded" yet.

HITs are always first applied to shielded squares, then empty ones, and so on.
SHIELDS are always first applied to slashed squared, then empty ones.

Shields can NOT make and X into a slash...so resources that are actually used up (by the player or due to any kind of harm) are not refreshable in this way.
Slashed squares are still usable, but they get used AFTER all empty and the Shielded squares are consumed.
BLANKs can not cause HITs nor SHIELDs.

...

Why do all this?
To serve a double intention:
1) it allows a more tactical game, where tools DO count and are consistently represented
2) since weapons can greatly speed up the burnout of Roots (leading to an untimely demise and the loss of the conflict) it is VERY convenient to use SHIELDS, even stoking up on them before plunging head first into action...this means (I hope) that the actions described during play will not only represent an endless stream of bold and infallible "attacks" (of any nature) but will introduce more variety, rewarding the player for narrating acts of prudence, strategy, embarrassment, cowardice, retreats, failed actions, self-reflection, etc.

BLANKs should help with this too, but they are much less rewarding.
They can be used to, basically, "delay" your actions...or as a last resort to avoid the instant loss of the conflict while manipulating the fiction to somehow turn the events in your favor (maybe finding something that can allow you to roleplay a shock thus earning Stress to burn, or finding tools that will help you against your opponent, or change the situation in a way that puts your opponent in a bad place [taking hostages? hiding in a place that he fears? or running toward your allies, or common enemies, or something] )

mmm...this makes me wonder...should I allow the option to "tie"?
I mean, we get to an empasse, you hold an hostage that I don't want to hurt, but I won't just let you go away or somehow win ... so the current conflict (regardless of Progress) is ended in a TIE.
Traits and USED Roots will refresh (shields and slashes should also go away) ... and we can play out the new situation, possibly getting into a new conflict.

[Hasimir0]

...err...I wanted to edit, but I can't...so... "stoking" is not the word I wanted to use, I meant a word that not eludes me...and it meant "to make provisions, to accumulate"

[Hasimir0]

grrr ... I'm too accustomed to reviewing and editing text AFTER I posted it that I don't pay enough attention to what I first type, as you can see by the "a word that not eludes me"
Sorry for my bad habit and for this multiple & useless posts.
I'll try to be more careful in the future

[Eero Tuovinen]

I looked into your system the day before yesterday for a bit. The system seems basically solid, although the writing style is a bit confusing. My advice for this sort of system at this stage is to apply it in play via a playtest. Keep a hard eye on how and when you use the different rules, and whether there are any rules you don't actually use, or any moments when the procedures of the game do not actually determine what the players should be doing. After playtesting you should have on hand a list of specific issues and concerns that you can use to streamline and develop the system further.

[Hasimir0]

I'm just dropping by to say that this project is not dead.
I followed the suggestions and re-wrote the whole thing in a more comprehensible way...I developed it past the initial level of "some sketchy ideas on a napkin" ... and I'm now trying to put the game into some playtest to iron out the more obvious and embarassing problems.

When this is done I'll translate it and post it here.
Thanks for pointing me into the right direction