The Power 19 cheat sheet?

[David C]

I was writing my power 19 and I started encountering questions that definitely got me thinking about things. To begin, I need to provide you some background on my game development. I am a gamist player, as I enjoy a long campaign with character advancement.  However, I enjoy narrativism just as much!  The failings of the existing gamist games (as well as about half the players who play those games) in the narrativism sector has given me the desire to make my own game. I've found this has become a huge project and as such, I've started to lose sight of my target.  I've made a very good gamist game, but it has probably entirely missed the mark as far as role play and story encouragement goes. I wanted to go through issues or conflicts I'm having, over a few posts, so I can try and remedy this. 
(A goal I have with this project is to be able to take a group of players who aren't adverse to roleplay, they just don't know how to do it, and through the natural course of the game, become better roleplayers than they were before.)

Today, I wanted to look at questions 5 & 6. 

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
So far, I have a pretty standard, choose a race, choose a core proficiency, pick a few skills system. Is this insufficient?  Would it be wise to include a personality guide/trait guide? Do I want to reward it mechanically? If I did, I would want to reward players with a "gamist" reward only if they expressed their traits during game play.*

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
As a gamist game, it inadvertently rewards power playing, which is undesirable. While balancing it is important, there will always be an optimal combination somebody discovers. Unfortunately, I am unsure of the proper way to deal with this as an author, likely because I haven't been able to successfully deal with power playing in my own games. 

*I had one idea for one mechanic.  The way it would work is players pick out several primary personality traits. Each session, the GM would reward each player individually for how many of their traits they successfully expressed that evening. But I have reservations about using a mechanically driven trait system.
A. Making a complete/comprehensive list is futile
B. Players will likely choose "Greedy" "Liar" or "Bloodthirsty" not because it adds to their character, but it's very easy to be a greedy, lieing, murderer in an RPG.


My answers to 5 & 6.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
   Character creation allows the players to pick a race, many of which are unique to the setting.  Each race fills a unique niche in the world, giving them a strong sense of background, and encouraging them to have a well defined basis of where they came from.  This also allows for unique character interactions. 
   They then choose a class, which gives them a sense of purpose, where they are headed. Each of the classes carries a strong flavor that does not burden the player with duty.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
   The game rewards players for attending every session, without victimizing them for missing sessions.  It rewards them for choosing abilities that help their allies and forces them to cooperate as a group. It rewards them for paying attention during the game. It punishes them for using their money on power-ups. It rewards them for playing in a way that the Director approves of.  It rewards them for contributing to the game.

[soundmasterj]

Well, if I understand it correctly, gamism is ABOUT having fun with "powerplaying", ie., making the most of your play by acting as optimally rules-wise as possible. And there´s nothing wrong with that. You play chess, you try to beat me as hard as you can. Chess WORKS when you do that. Chess sucks when you try playing elss than optimally. That´s what a gamist game (weeee) should do, too. Make up a game that works best when everybody tries beating it.
If you DON´T want a game where "powerplaying" (what?) is encouraged, what else should be encouraged? I say, you don´t want powerplaying? Look at these rules: http://www.lumpley.com/archive/148.html
There is no way to be better with the dice than somebody else. You won´t derive any fun from "having more dice" than the other players in this game, so you won´t even try it. You´ll try telling a nice story.

What is your game about? Say your game is about tactical swordfighting. At character creation, don´t talk about meaningless things like "morals", "religion", give the players 500 different tactical choices about their characters´ swordfighting capabilities. Say your game is about behaving morally in an amoral world. At character creation, don´t talk about meaningless things like "dual-bladed wielding", "aim-for-the-eyes", but make sure every player clearly fleshes out his characters´ moral system.

I don´t like the idea of the players being rewarded for "acting out personality traits". I say, let the characters play determine what their personality traits are.
I´m pretty sure making sure the characters behave "appropriately" isn´t gamism nor narrativism, but simulationism. If you WANT the game be about characters behaving like their paper tells them to, I guess you would reward them for that, but why?

See, you got "role play" and "story encouragement" and it´s supposedly a "gamist" game. That´s what, like 3 different creative agendas. Won´t work, I´m pretty sure. It would be like WoD games: GM wants to tell a story, players want to do gamism, rules support sim, everybody is unhappy.
So, make up your mind about your goals: do you want players to game, to simulate people (acting out personalities), or to help you telling a story? Whatever you chose, that´s what rules should be about. Want to game? Rules should be balanced and reward creative use. Want "roleplay"? Don´t care about balancing, just make sure noone even tries to game by telling them not to and provide the means to roleplay. Want to tell tales? Rules should center around the plot (reward players for introducing moral challenge, for adressing premise).

[Eero Tuovinen]

We need to discuss GNS here. (Soundmaster is basically right, but the topics needs to be expanded upon to be understood easily.) Also, as a separate concern, David should tell us more about the sort of substance he wants to get out of his game, using just natural language; his use of the term "gamist" is occluding the initial post so much that I'm not entirely certain what his design priorities for this game are.

I'm too knackered right now to write at length about this, though. Need sleep. If nobody else comes in to discourse about how David can recognize his Creative Agenda and support it before Wednesday, somebody remind me about this.

[dindenver]

Dave,
  I don't want to step on anyone's toes. It looks like Eero wants to address some real concerns. But I want to address the OP from a different perspective:
You are not doing it wrong.

  Seriously, you can't design a game incorrectly. The only caveat being, if when you are done, if you would love to play this game, you did it right.
  So, if you want to make a bog standard chargen, more power to you. The point of Power 19 is twofold: One, to get you to ask questions of your self about your design intent. Two, to allow you to communicate your design intent to anyone who might read it and make suggestions about your game.
  The point of focused design is that each mechanic or system component reinforces what the game is about. In a very real sense, D&D is a focused design, everything in the game is about adventure, combat and exploration. You can see it in the design, it is direct and it makes no apologies for what it is. You can be that way too. But in order to do that you have to decide what the design is about.

  So, to get back to your questions:
So far, I have a pretty standard, choose a race, choose a core proficiency, pick a few skills system. Is this insufficient?
  Only you can answer that question. The point of #5 is to get you to ask yourself, how is chargen about what my game is about? So, for instance, if you used the standard 6 D&D traits for an Emily Bronte game, then chargen is not about what the game is about. I don't think it matters what Heathcliff's Strength stat is, do you?

Would it be wise to include a personality guide/trait guide?
  Only if it is relevant to the game you are making. For instance, Pendragon has stats for virtues and they work wonderfully in that traditional/gamist game. But, if those personality traits don't have a bearing on the setting (e.g., all of the characters made for the game have a similar personality), then it would be meaningless, no?

Do I want to reward it mechanically?
  Reward mechanisms should come from players engaging in behaviors that you think are part of the fun of the system. That's why the original rules for D&D only included XPs for fighting, that is where the fun was. If you look at other focused designs, you will see that the reward systems follow that same pattern. Reward people for using the fun parts of the game.

  I think your idea of rewarding players for playing in character is a good idea. I would suggest you look at "keys" from Shadow of Yesterday/Solar System. In this system, players pick a drive/motivation and the only way to get XPs is to hit criteria that matches that drive. For instance, one of the keys is Key of Compassion, you get 1 XP for helping someone, 3 XPs for helping someone in such a way that it puts your character at risk and 5 XPs for helping someone in such a way that they can help themselves in the future. I don't think it is exactly what you were proposing, but I do think its a good example of something like this working in a more traditional RPG.

  Good luck with your design man!

[soundmasterj]

Even having only skimmed over The Shadow of Yesterday, I would argue that Keys are fundamentally different from "rewards for good role-playing", but other than that, yes, great suggestion.

You might want to read this: http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html#keys

[dindenver]

J,
 

I had one idea for one mechanic.  The way it would work is players pick out several primary personality traits. Each session, the GM would reward each player individually for how many of their traits they successfully expressed that evening.

That description almost sounds exactly like Keys. The only difference is the end of the session portion as apposed to the immediate reward of Keys. I didn't quote it before, sorry.
  Thanks for the linkage, I guess I was being lazy.

[David C]

You guys ask tough questions, I'm glad I come here, haha.

Ok, let me first address the GNS issues we are having here. I have read Ron's articles, and it is actually rather complex. This is my interpretation of the model.

Gamist games tend to have lots of crunchy bits.  They reward you for using tactics or having the biggest modifier. Using Chris Bateman's audience model http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/07/the_state_of_th.html Gamist gamers tend to be type 1 conquerers and type 2 managers.

Narrativist games tend to have few crunchy bits.  They reward you for advancing the story and entertaining the group with good story telling. Narrativist gamers tend to be type 4 participants and type 3 wanderers.

Simulationist games typically emphasis reality or verisimilitude above all else. They are more interested in the referendum of play. I imagine the quintessential simulationist game theme is zombie survival. Simulationist gamers tend to be type 3 wanderers and type 2 managers.

Well, if I understand it correctly, gamism is ABOUT having fun with "powerplaying", ie., making the most of your play by acting as optimally rules-wise as possible. And there´s nothing wrong with that. You play chess, you try to beat me as hard as you can. Chess WORKS when you do that. Chess sucks when you try playing elss than optimally.

I think we need to go further into this subject for us to have a good discussion.  First of all, power playing is really defined by the social contract.  In some groups min/maxing is power play, in some groups it is using 15 books to create a character and in some groups there is virtually no limit. (I once knew a guy who played in a level 40 epic gestalt D&D game...)  Despite this, I feel there is a very good definition for power gaming. Using traditional RPG archetypes, power gaming is when one player eclipse other player(s) roles in the game, either through sheer power (I'm so strong I can defeat an army by myself, I'm so tough I can walk through this trap without it hurting me) or by horizontal competency (I can do defense, attack, utility and healing, all by myself, just as well as anyone else in the group.)
Secondly, my game, like many others, is meant to be played cooperatively.  Yes, players are attempting to beat the obstacles thrown at them by a GM, but that should be the extent of the competition.

So revisiting my game goals. I want to create a game where players are have characters that are well defined mechanically that allows them to use tactics within combat and other situations, like performing acrobatics.  However, I want the game to encourage players to create a character personality that they express during the game. A player should be encouraged to do what is part of their character's personality, not just whatever is best for their character in meta-game. A character should be rewarded for developing how their character fits into the world.  A well developed character should have background (where I came from, how I was raised, what events shaped my life), personality (how would you react in a given situation, how do other characters react to you), and connections (I know this person, and they are my friend/love BECAUSE of this, I know this person, and they dislike/hate me BECAUSE of this.) 

    * Type 1 Conqueror play style is associated with challenge and the emotional payoff of Fiero - triumph over adversity. This correlates with what Nicole Lazarro has called "Hard fun". We associate Type 1 play with players who aim to utterly defeat games they play - they finish games they start.
    * Type 2 Manager play style is associated with mastery and systems. Victory for people preferring this play style seems to be the sign that they have acquired the necessary skills, not a goal in and of itself. They may not finish many games that they start playing.
    * Type 3 Wanderer play style is associated with experience and identity. This correlates somewhat with what Nicole Lazarro has called "Easy fun". Challenge is not especially desired, but may be tolerated - what they enjoy is unique and interesting experiences. Stories and mimicry are key draws.
    * Type 4 Participant play style is associated with emotions and involvement. It connects with what Nicole Lazarro calls "The People Factor". Participants seem happiest when they are playing with people, but they also enjoy play which is rooted in emotion. Any game which allows the player an emotional stake is a potential Type 4 game.

That description almost sounds exactly like Keys. The only difference is the end of the session portion as apposed to the immediate reward of Keys. I didn't quote it before, sorry.
  Thanks for the linkage, I guess I was being lazy.

Yes, it does sound very similar to keys. 

Even having only skimmed over The Shadow of Yesterday, I would argue that Keys are fundamentally different from "rewards for good role-playing", but other than that, yes, great suggestion.

Could you please go into more detail about how keys are different? More specifically, what would you consider a reward for good role-playing? (Other then itself being a reward, which is good, but cyclical. I want to try and help initiate the cycle.)

[soundmasterj]

I´m not sure we (you) actually need a GNS discussion. Just forget terminology. Make up your mind what kind of fun you want to have and of you go.

Concerning "powerplaying": you are clearly right that it isn´t well defined enough to be used meaningfully. Concerning "gamism", on the other hand, could mean many different types of competition: BETWEEN players (am I better than the other players?) or against, for example, adversity provided by the GM. You want players to cooperate in competition against these GM-provided obstacles, not compete with each other? How about you give them tactical options that need to be adressed as a team?
Say, for example, that your game world is full of Evil Deathfrogs. To beat an evil deathfrog, you need to pin it to the ground, open his mouth and make him eat fire. So you would need a strong dude pinning him, a second strong dude holding his mouth open and a smart dude casting a fire spell. Say players get overwhelmed constantly by hordes of evil Cros (like orcs, but red). Say, these Cros are for a change not completely stupid: if they meet a lone warrior, one attacks from the front, the other from behind. So every warrior needs someone watching his back.
If you want competition but cooperation, that´s how I would look at it. Concerning the power19, question 6: if you want your game to be about tactical cooperation, you should REWARD tactical cooperation.
You don´t need to explicitly reward them for doing what you want them to do. Just appeal to their inner powergamer (after all, you want to appeal to gamists): it is the tactically sane choice to cooperate, they will.

Ok. Now, that´s the tacital part. How to encourage "role-appropriate behaviour"? I don´t know. I think it´s boring, anyways. I´d say, just don´t make it unwise to act thusly. At no point should the player who behaves "right" be hindered in his tactial options. Let´s see, an example... So if, for exampel, you don´t want your players, who are supposed to be "moral" because they are "good guys", to steal this magic sword - don´t reward them for it. Make sure that the magic sword they might steal just isn´t worth stealing (because all swords do the same damage, magic swords just glow a little). Make the areas never touch at all. At no point should what happens outside of tactical choices reflect on tactical choices et v.v.
If there is no danger, no bad side to having your guy act appropriately, they will if they think it is fun. If they actually don´t think it is fun, they should play another game.

How about that?

[soundmasterj]

Ah, and concerning keys: I never played those. But, to use terminology, they seem to be a narrativist tool. You want your characters´ story to be about love, you say you get rewarded if your characters´ acts concern love.
What you proposed is a simulationist tool, if I see it right. You want your characters to be like THIS, so you reward their players if their character acts like THIS. I don´t know. Maybe I just don´t get simulationism. What is the fun in that? I tell my character like I want him to (if I am not punished for it), like I think is the most fun. If I for some reason think what´s the most fun is having him run around, raping nuns, that´s what I´ll do cause it´s fun, not cause you are forcing me to do so by reward mechanisms. So, character is derived empirically in play. I act like this, so my character is like this. If I acted differently, I would be a different character.

Sorry, I fear I just don´t get sim.

[Peter Nordstrand]

David,

I think you need to decide what you want to get out of this particular thread. Do you want to learn about the Big Model and GNS, as defined in Ron's articles on this site, OR would you prefer to focus on the specific design issues of your game. Trying to do both at once will only mess things up.

If you want to talk about your game design problems, I suggest that you drop all terminology and just try to state as clearly as possible, in plain jargon-free English, what your problem is. Be specific and give examples if necessary.

If you want to discuss GNS, that is another matter entirely, as it will take some time and effort to deal with properly. The thing is, and I'm not trying to be mean or snobbish or anything like that, that you have completely misunderstood the terms gamism, narrativism, and simulationism as they are used around here. That's okay. It is not a big deal and I am most certainly not thinking less of you beacuse of it.

I'm just saying that I don't think it is rational, or even possible, to deal with both issues in the same thread. The decision is yours. You can always start a new topic to discuss the other thing. 

[David C]

If you want to talk about your game design problems, I suggest that you drop all terminology and just try to state as clearly as possible, in plain jargon-free English, what your problem is. Be specific and give examples if necessary.

Well, apparently I don't understand the model.  At least now, I understand I don't understand the model.  So lets do what you suggest and go down the path of my individual design concerns.  I will reread the GNS model discussions later, and perhaps make another post if I am still confused.

In my game, players will create a character with well defined attributes.  They will know how successful they are at given tasks relative to the enemies, and can advance their characters through game play.  While I feel this sector of my game design has been successful, there is another area I wish to have and have yet to develop sufficiently.  This area of the game attempts to get players to act less like robots and more like a being.  I will give a few examples of desired play and undesired play.

Cros burned down a village and kidnapped some of the villagers. The villagers ask the players to help.
'robot' response, "What's the reward?"
a valiant character, "Of course we will save your loved ones!"
a cold mercenary, "We don't work for free, pal."

A sultry woman walks up to the group.
'robot' response, "cool, does she look rich?" or "sweet, I try and sleep with her"
a tomboyish female, "Look lady, we don't associate with the likes of you."
a boorish wizard, "...oh yes, don't startle me like that, oh did you need something?"

In the undesired situations, the players treat each encounter as a road sign and look immediately for the quickest path to the next promise of treasure.  For players who enjoy just dungeon crawls, this is OK, but this is not my target.  Now lets go back to one of my previous statements.

(A goal I have with this project is to be able to take a group of players who aren't adverse to roleplay, they just aren't very good at it, and through the natural course of the game, become better roleplayers than they were before.)

Now, one step I have already taken is I de-emphasized the rewards gained through combat.  Experience is handed out for any conflict. You might receive a lot of treasure, but there is a limit to what you can use at any given level. Another thing I have done is created rewards for having a home.  For example, a wizard will find himself better able to research spells in his library, while a blacksmith needs a forge to craft.  The last thing I have done is created a setting that (hopefully) is intriguing and draws the player into the world.

I have a laundry list of ideas that I could add, but I feel they may just be bloat and will still be treated as road signs, instead of opportunities to develop your character. And I do realize there are people out there that are just adverse to roleplaying. I am trying to reach an audience that would LIKE to roleplay more, but simply do not have the skills and experience to do it on their own. 

[David C]

Ah, and concerning keys: I never played those. But, to use terminology, they seem to be a narrativist tool. You want your characters´ story to be about love, you say you get rewarded if your characters´ acts concern love.
What you proposed is a simulationist tool, if I see it right. You want your characters to be like THIS, so you reward their players if their character acts like THIS. I don´t know. Maybe I just don´t get simulationism. What is the fun in that? I tell my character like I want him to (if I am not punished for it), like I think is the most fun. If I for some reason think what´s the most fun is having him run around, raping nuns, that´s what I´ll do cause it´s fun, not cause you are forcing me to do so by reward mechanisms. So, character is derived empirically in play. I act like this, so my character is like this. If I acted differently, I would be a different character.

Sorry, I fear I just don´t get sim.

I think you're looking at it backwards.  The player decides they want their character to be a "Cold hearted mercenary." They then would have traits like, "Cold" "Standoffish" "Pragmatic" and "Scarred past."  If they succeed in portraying their character as they intended, they would be rewarded.  Something about keys, that I like, is that if your character *changes* or *evolves* there is a mechanic to let this happen naturally.  After all, stories are about transformation, and I think RPGs are more interesting if they're about story.
If the character was supposed to be a nun rapist, then that would be a trait he picked.  But the behavior I want to avoid is, having a player make a Valiant Paladin, who then rapes a nun, because somebody offered him 50 xp and a flaming sword if he did it. That's not valiant, nor is it paladin like, it is doing whatever grants the greatest metagame reward.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I think I'm starting to figure out what David is looking for in his game. You want to make the fiction of the game matter more, right? The actions of the characters should match their in-fiction concerns and form a believable narrative of events.

The part that is still a bit vague to me is the role of reward-grabbing here: you say that your players will undoubtedly be interested in improving the lot of their characters by going after whatever mechanical rewards are available, but you also say that you want to reward depicting consistent, colorful and varied character personages in the game. Would you say that it's important to you that the players choose between challenges, take them on and complete them to progress their characters, but that this needs to happen within the imaginative context of the game for it to be interesting? Or would you rather say that what you're interested in is depicting the varied and colorful adventures of interesting characters, and you can do that by giving character-efficiency rewards to players who decide to play along?

(Insofar as anybody cares, off-hand this is either gamism or simulationism, depending on which of the above is David's intention. There probably isn't incoherence here, it's just that we need to find out what David is actually trying to do below all this adventure game clutter. I agree with Peter in that it's probably better to deal with GNS in some simpler and less cluttered context, though. David could start an actual play thread about his rpg history, for example.)

[David C]

Would you say that it's important to you that the players choose between challenges, take them on and complete them to progress their characters, but that this needs to happen within the imaginative context of the game for it to be interesting?

Or would you rather say that what you're interested in is depicting the varied and colorful adventures of interesting characters, and you can do that by giving character-efficiency rewards to players who decide to play along?

Before I can give you an answer, I need some clarification. I need a better definition of "character efficiency rewards."  The other part is, when you say "to players who decide to play along" my instinct says that sounds like the setting/GM has exclusive narrative power, and that the players are asked to play the script handed to them. I prefer the idea that the players develop their characters, and the GM incorporates this dialogue into the larger story. 

David could start an actual play thread about his rpg history

I'm unsure of what you're asking for, here. When specifically are you referring to when you say rpg history? The a play summary of a session of the game I have created?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Before I can give you an answer, I need some clarification. I need a better definition of "character efficiency rewards."  The other part is, when you say "to players who decide to play along" my instinct says that sounds like the setting/GM has exclusive narrative power, and that the players are asked to play the script handed to them. I prefer the idea that the players develop their characters, and the GM incorporates this dialogue into the larger story. 

"Character efficiency rewards" are rewards that are given in the form of character efficiency. All of the rewards you have mentioned here have been in the form of experience points (to presumably increase character skills and whatnot, to make them succeed more often and in larger context) and magic items (same purpose). There are other ways of rewarding players as well - I might go as far as saying that much of what is dysfunctional in rpg design comes from trying to use character efficiency rewards to do the work better suited to other ways of rewarding players.

As for playing along, correction noted. What I wanted to ask was whether you want to encourage believable, interesting fiction by giving character efficiency rewards to players who help you in doing that.

David could start an actual play thread about his rpg history

I'm unsure of what you're asking for, here. When specifically are you referring to when you say rpg history? The a play summary of a session of the game I have created?

Well, it's often been the case that GNS has been best discussed in context of real-life play experience; as Vincent Baker memorably put it, this is because most people have only ever played rpgs with one Creative Agenda, and are thus constantly trying to reflect the completely different agendas others discuss on this narrow experience base of their own. So I'm interested in hearing about what sort of rpgs you've played, and perhaps about some games and experiences that have been particularly important to you - especially good games, especially bad games, games you feel like you understand especially well. All that gives us more context to point to real things and some idea of what things we should discuss theory-wise in the first place.

No pressure to do this, though; start something if you feel like it. Read what others have written in the Actual Play forum, too.