Power 19 for my game and concept discussion

[markhaselb]

Hello everyone,

I am currently in the design phase of a game I want to develop. In the past I tried several settings and ideas for games, but I never completed them to satisfaction, mainly because of a recurring "kitchen sink"-ness in my games and lack of design in the first place. Some time ago I came in contact with rpg theory and after analysing my previous game attempts and thinking about what I really want to see in a game I decided try it once again. As a first step I answered the Power 19 questions.
Any help in form of comments is appreciated! After the answers to the 19 questions I wrote down some further thoughts.

1.) What is your game about?
In this game the themes are moral questions, actions and their consequences, and their effects on human psyche. I am trying to include some kind of a 'philosophical' aspect in my game, the goal is to help the characters define their role and fate in the world.
The questions posed to the characters are the use, cause and role of violence, relationships (to single persons as well those of communities), politics, religion and fear in their view of the world.   

2.) What do the characters do?
Characters start out in their everyday life environment, doing their jobs, trying to reach their goals in life. As the game proceeds they get entangled in circumstances beyond their control, facing them with above mentioned questions and leading them to reflect their lives, helping them to better understand who they are.

3.) What do the players do?
There is a game master who creates a sandbox environment for the other players. He manages the environment of the players and sets up opportunities for them to achieve their goals that might lead to a series of unforeseen consequences which tackle the characters beliefs.
It is up to the players to depict their characters' behavior.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
There is no predefined setting for the game, it is up to the players to create an interesting setting they want to play. However I have a few requirements in mind that help to play the game the way I imagined it to be played:
the characters should be connected to one another through friendship, obligations or by any other means
there exist different views on the world that the characters should be confronted with, thus helping them reflect their own view. In ideal circumstances there exist two or more large interest groups with conflicting agendas with whom the characters come into contact. This may create tension between the characters, stressing their friendship and forcing them to discuss their beliefs and ethics.
the characters reside in a small, detailed territory of the world and preferably stay in that place or frequently revisit this place. This is important to let the players see the effects of their actions on the environment.
should magic exist in the setting, then it has the property of corrupting the user. This creates another way of setting up moral choices for the characters
the rest of the setting is very variable. It can be a classical fantasy world, a present day society or whatever you want.
Furthermore I think of providing one to three sample settings for players to start with. After all I will have to work out a setting anyway for playtesting reasons.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
This is not worked out yet. My concept is that the players should gather in a group, discuss what power level they want to play, what characters they would like to play and what they hope to experience in the game. This will help them agree on a group of characters that are somewhat interlinked and define the goals their characters want to achieve.
After this meeting the players should think of a background story for their characters and last but not least put everything together with rules from the game. The rules part of the creation is relatively simple: there are guidelines for scores and character features, but it is not a point buy system so that the players can define their character in the rules very easy. After all they made an agreement what the play beforehand, so theoretically there is no envy between the players because one character is unfair.
The guidelines in the character generation also provide a base for the game master to create NPCs with skill levels that match their background.
This is a part where I would like to hear opinions from you!

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
This is not worked out yet. As for rewards: I haven't thought of a good system, nor do I know whether I really need a reward system. Since the idea of the game is a sandbox setting, the players can try to change things in the world wherever they want. The lack of a story that is forced onto the players/characters creates a situation where the players know to some degree what they can expect ( the job offer from a shady looking guy seems risky? Well then I don't take it. In a scenario with a preset story I might have to take it because otherwise there is nothing else to play => frustration).
Basically I want to reward behaviors that reflect the character well and want to reduce unthoughtful or random behaviors ( burning down a house because your character is a pyromaniac is fine, however it is not fine for a policeman to burn down a house simply because his player is bored thought this would be fun right now. Preventing the player from being bored is the first choice of course).
Again I would appreciate your opinions on this point.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
So far there is no actual reward or punishment. One thing I planned is that the characters can acquire mental and physical illnesses through extreme behavior (only logical consequences of the behavior, not random stuff such as "you burned down a house, now you get an aneurysm") although this may sometimes not be a punishment as it can create even more interesting situations for the characters.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
Players decide what their characters do, the GM describes the world.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
The players try to reach their characters' goals in a sandbox environment, they can connect to the world because they see the consequences of their decisions sooner or later, which means that the characters actively form the world and do not just sit through a story the GM wants to tell.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
This is to early to ask. At first I hope to read different opinions on the design in general and revisit the resolution mechanics when the other design components are set.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
See 10.)

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?
As the game advances the characters get closer to the goals they set at the character creation part or may develop entirely new goals. They can become rich, have a fulfilled relationship, whatever the players want to achieve. On the side of rules and game mechanics characters advance by practicing their skills only, there are no experience points or similar mechanics.
Furthermore I head the idea that achieving their goals lets the players remove hindering or negative effects from their characters (this means for example that a character who wants to become an underworld crime boss, slowly loses his sense for conscience and morals, that prevented him from doing highly criminal things before, the closer he gets to his goal )

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
As in the rest of the game, the players get to see the results of their actions. If their characters practice their stats increase, and the players can freely decide what stats these should be.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
I want to the players to open their minds and question their characters' beliefs as they pursue their goals in an open ended environment. Additionally I want to give them the chance to reach the goals through a series of efforts and unforeseen events.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
Most important are the game mechanics, as the setting is variable. Important parts of the rules will concern the mental health of a character, their skills and learning. Rules for physical combat will be included but I want to make the combat part less dominant than in the games I played before.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
Not worked out yet

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can't, don't, or won't?
I think there is nothing in my game that has not been done in other games before. While writing this down I read other answers to the Power 19 and stumbled upon a lot of similar ideas and concepts. As well as I am looking forward to playing those games I want to find the best mix for myself and share it with others.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?
Sharing the game with a few friends, eventually make it available as a free pdf

19.) Who is your target audience?
Players who like simulation in their games and who want to explore their characters' emotions and beliefs, instead of simply hunting for treasure or killing monsters without thinking about the reasons for this behavior.

Further thoughts:
One thing that really bugs me is a skill list. Previously I was a fan of detailed lists, however I don't find that useful for my game.
In order to simplify this I intended to introduce a system where skills can be raised in 3 parts:
one meta skill (example: handcrafting)
one specific skill (example: wood working)
one special aspect of the skill that only gives a specific bonus (example: doors).

The specific skill score and the specific bonus can be added to every meta skill where they apply.
Someone with the setup from the example would use the handcrafting score for anything he wants to make from metal, paper and so on. For every wooden product he would use the score from handcrafting + wood working, and the sum of all three if he makes a door. For kicking through a door he may use body + brawl + door score, for guessing the price and quality of a wooden product he may use knowledge + wood working score, anything that makes sense.

My concern with this system is that by writing down a list of possible skills this part of the game gets too complex again. Do I really need the possibility to build doors in the game? Most of the time this will not be in use, but what if the campaign is about a group of characters who want to become set up the most successful enterprise for security doors in their hometown? This is a valuable option from what I said about the concept earlier.
I feel that a simple mechanic for product quality in relation to skill might be needed, not only for doors but the probably more common products such as weapons, armor and so on that typical characters would use.
This is a part in the design where I am really undecided, because it is my urge ( coming from my simulationist and kitchen-sink past) to provide a lot of detail/possibilities and at the same time I want simple design.
Anyway thank you for reading the long article, I am looking forward to reading your comments.

[Jonathan Walton]

Wow, that seems like a lot of text that doesn't really say very much, because it sounds like you're not really sure what you want to do with this game yet.  Maybe the Power 19 isn't the best tool for you right now.

What I'm getting from this is:

1) there are characters, who may or may not be ordinary people,
2) they have goals,
3) the players say what they do,
4) the GM describes the results, after some skill rolls or something,
5) eventually they face moral crises and/or go insane.

Is that an accurate outline of where your game is right now?

What I'm not getting, at all, is how you get from steps 1-4 to step 5, if there's no structures in place to actually make the characters' lives stressful or fraught with crises and mortal questions.  Have you given that any thought?  Seems like that's unlikely to emerge organically from the characters just wondering around in a "sandbox" world and is probably the first thing you need to pay attention to in design, rather than worrying about the skills.

[markhaselb]

First of all, thanks for your reply. Yes you are right, there is a lot of uncertainty in the game design, and as in my previous attempts of designing a game I found it easier to play around with skill/game mechanics at first, although that seems very counterproductive.

Let's talk about your observations. So far you are correct, and I'd like to add my opinion
1) there are characters, who may or may not be ordinary people,
Yes, I wanted to leave this up to the people who play the game. You can face a crisis whether you are ordinary or "a hero". Personally I'd like to have the players take the roles of ordinary people, but why should I restrict them to that roles when this is not essential for the game?
It is important however that the characters have some sort of relation (i.e. master and servant, highschool friends) so that the players can act as a group in most of the cases.
2) they have goals,
and a basic set of morals and fears, as well as a few relationships to other characters in the world (family, friends), I would say
3) the players say what they do,
true
4) the GM describes the results, after some skill rolls or something,
true
5) eventually they face moral crises and/or go insane.
true

What I'm not getting, at all, is how you get from steps 1-4 to step 5 [,,,]

Hmm yes, maybe it is a good idea to include a setup for the conflicts in the first place, maybe even as a part of character creation. To be honest I assumed that the GM would somehow come up with a sort of conflict, I'll make an example:
Assume the player characters want to found their own enterprise (goal), with every character taking a role in the enterprise (chief accountant, business manager, computer network administrator). At the beginning of the game they have jobs in the same town ("small" detailed area). Their first goal probably is to raise enough money for their enterprise. Now the GM sets up several problems: the get no loan from the bank, one of the characters may lose his job because of drug abuse. However the GM or the players may present solutions to these problems, i.e. their relatives can help them out with money but it would mean a huge loss for them, the jobless character might consider dealing drugs to raise money because he can't find a job fast.

While writing the example I noticed that it indeed appears very constructed. This leads me to another idea: maybe give the characters a set of flaws as well (this could be a part of the conflict-setup I mentioned earlier). The drug abusing character seems to have the most potential for conflicts so far. Will he give up his addiction for the success of the enterprise? If so, how will he do it? How much responsibility will his friends let him take in the enterprise, knowing about his problems. If they don't know, how long will he be able to keep the secret from his friends/business partners?

[Jonathan Walton]

Okay, my suggestion is to go ahead and plan for the characters being ordinary people, since that seems to be where your interests are.  I mean, these are roleplayers we're talking about here.  Sure, they'll use your game to play Jedi eventually, but you don't need to hold that door open for them; they're perfectly capable of doing that themselves, yeah? And trying to be all things to all people can paralyze your design work, preventing you from making strong choices on what the game is about.  So, default = ordinary people but maybe you have a sidebar that says "Lives Less Ordinary" or something.

Okay, morals, fears, flaws, and relationships... now we're getting somewhere.  In a game about people handling stress and maybe even going nuts, these are likely to be far more important in structuring play than skills.  How do the characters get these things?  Are they simply brainstormed by the players during character creation?  Are any mechanics associated with them, the way you can draw on traits like "I hope I don't embarrass myself in front of the others" in games like Dogs and Burning Wheel?

Your insight about the set up being "very constructed" is spot-on.  However, it seems like it would work better if the overall premise wasn't something the GM foisted on the characters after character creation, yeah?  Seems like the overall premise of the game probably needs to be agreed upon between the players and GM before the game even starts.  Like: "we're a company of copier repairmen who also grab drinks after work together and are the only real social outlet each other has because our lives are lonely and dull" or, if you want something slightly less depressing, "we're a group of old college friends still living in the same town, trying to keep our relationships strong despite being pulled in different directions."  And then once you decide a premise like that, THEN you make characters that work with that premise, yeah?

And then, once play start, it's the GM's job to really push at the characters problems, hoping to create crises and such.  Something like that?

A game you might check out is Elizabeth Shoemaker's "It's Complicated," which is a significantly zanier and very rules-light version of something like this, meant for playing TV shows like The Office, where you have a group of characters with weird hang-ups and a social environment that brings all that dysfunction to the forefront.  While I don't think the mechanics are anything close to what you want here, the way Elizabeth has you set up the characters in a dysfunctional relationship, before play starts, might be something you'd find inspiring.

[markhaselb]

Seems like the overall premise of the game probably needs to be agreed upon between the players and GM before the game even starts.

That was the idea behind the character creation answer in my Power 19, probably was not clear from what I wrote

How do the characters get these things? Are they simply brainstormed by the players during character creation? Are any mechanics associated with them [...]

In my latest thought I wondered how the character goals relate to these factors. Obviously the characters have not reached their goals yet and my conclusion was that they are not comfortable with their current situation in life and thus they (somehow?) prevent themselves from achieving their goals. By finding out the reasons for their discomfort and changing the necessary things they come closer to their goals.
In character creation the players indeed brainstorm their morals, fears and so on. Let's refer to these as traits, because I plan to use all of these in a trait-like way as in other games. So far I have not thought of a specific resolution mechanic, but how these traits can be manipulated.
My structure of traits is [trait][Source][Resolution: change or accept]. In character creation you start simply with the trait. During the game you have to gain insight on the source of the trait and the final step would be to either change the trait (because "this is not who I want to be") or accept it (because "this is a part of who I am").

Example: Start out with trait "I hope I don't embarrass myself in front of the others", gain insight "because it reminds me how vulnerable I really am", change "showing vulnerability makes me human, there is no shame in embarassing myself" or accept "I am vulnerable and I can do nothing about it"

As you see the decision in the trait resolution phase lets the player set the tone of the character and the source phase makes the character reflect his personality. This is part of what I wanted to achieve with the game. Probably you noticed that the [Source] component is similar to the Oddity/Disfunction mechanic in "It's Complicated", thanks for this tip!
Additional ideas are that you can have multiple [Source] components in one trait, and that you can set one [Source] component in character creation already if it is very obvious, such as [I hate my mother][she killed my father]. A combination like this was the initial spark for multiple [Source] components (or call it [Insight] component?). The rest of the setup could advance like this: [I hate my mother][she killed my father][because he was an alcoholic, beat her and cheated on her][I can forgive her].

The place for the traits in my resolution system would be that they give boni or mali to the conflict in question, depending on the trait. How this actually works will be of my concern when I think about the resolution mechanic in detail

And then, once play start, it's the GM's job to really push at the characters problems, hoping to create crises and such.  Something like that?

Exactly. With the new idea that goals not possible unless problems are solved the GM has less to hope for and more to work with I think.

A game you might check out is Elizabeth Shoemaker's "It's Complicated,"

Yes, thanks again for the hint

[Jonathan Walton]

Mark, all that sounds great.  I'm glad my comments seem to be helping.

Honestly, the way your traits are structured remind me a lot of "Keys" from Clinton's The Shadow of Yesterday. Are you familiar with that? If not, it's available for free online, so you should be able to find it pretty easily. If you're playing normal people, I don't think you necessarily need an XP-based advancement system like TSOY has, but Keys are a good model of "personality / issue / problem mechanics" that allow characters to grow and change over time based on "buyoff conditions" that let them change their traits, similar to the character decisions you're setting up with your traits.  Some other games, like the Burning stuff, allow the player to make a subjective judgment call when a trait doesn't seem appropriate to a character any more. without having explicit conditions for the change, but, in practice, I find it works pretty similarly ("Hey, I beat that guy to a pulp... guess I should change my belief in pacifism"), TSOY just makes things a bit more explicit and formalized, which is mostly a question of style.

Another mechanic that's kinda in this same school is Aspects from Spirit of the Century. Keys, Aspects, and the BITs from Burning _____ all fill similar roles in helping explicitly define what a character is about, rather than leaving that stuff to exist off the character sheet, in a player's head and in the group's collective understanding of who a given character is.  Some folks (like me) find that kind of thing really useful in play, but other folks find it artifical and constricting.  Sounds like you're moving in the direction of more structure, though.

I'd send you more comments, but right now I'm in the midst of moving to Seattle. Honestly, at this point, it sounds like it might be helpful to sketch out some general guidelines for group brainstorming the general campaign premise and then how to create individual characters once you know what the campaign is about. This stuff might change a lot before you get around to playtesting, but it would probably help you and would certainly help me -- and other folks -- know how to give you more advice.

[markhaselb]

VERY LONG READ AHEAD!!

In the last few days I made progress with my design. So far there are no abilities or XP and I'm not planning on including these, the character is defined through traits only. Since you play ordinary people anyway I felt that there is no need to distinguish any abilities. Greater strength or other features above the ordinary can be handled via traits as well.

For campaign creation I advise the players to agree on a location, time-frame, mood and context to decide what they want to play, then sum it up in a short sentence to describe the premise (picking up your example: "we're a company of copier repairmen who also grab drinks after work together and are the only real social outlet each other has because our lives are lonely and dull"; location: your average town, time: current day, mood: slightly depressing, context: characters know each other from work and meet in a bar in their free time). Then the players brainstorm where the characters know each other from, how they are related, names, personality and so on.
I planned to have the mood give guidelines for character creation, i.e. on how many traits they should select. However I think this will have to wait until after my first playtests, because it is hard to guess this now.

In character creation the players brainstorm traits that reflect the facts that they came up with in campaign creation. There is no trait list, but traits follow a specific structure. Furthermore, each trait symbolizes one of the issues the character has to solve in order to get closure and move on in their life, meaning they can't achieve their goals until they have a resolution in all traits.

The structure is as follows: [trait][Level]:[Insight][Resolution]
[trait] is simply a description of the trait, such as [I like cookies]
[Level] is a measure of how strong the trait is and can range from 1 to 5
[Insight] is a part of the closure process. Before the resolution can begin, a character must acquire  an amount of insight components equal to the trait level. A trait can start with one insight in the beginning, but it must be at least a level 2 trait then. As you gain insight, your traits also get stronger. More on that can be found in the resolution mechanic.
Example: [I like cookies][2]:[The sweet taste is a contrast to my inner pain][I suffer because I feel guilty for bullying my brother as a teenager]
[Resolution] once you collected insights you can either accept the trait as it is, or change it. This is not really worked out yet, furthermore I had the idea that a trait can be repressed as well. That makes it a little stronger, but drives the character a little closer to insanity. Unfortunately I have no idea how to handle this, because adding other traits that display the insanity will probably create a loop. Maybe measure the number of repressed traits vs. the number of resolved traits and if the repressed gain upper hand your character goes completely nuts?

Next point: resolution mechanic
I worked out the mechanic for social conflicts first, since it is the most important mechanic of the game. Depending on the characters, the importance of physical conflicts can vary, but it is less important than physical conflict.
As in DitV, the conflict starter decides the stakes of the conflict and the winner decides the result.
There are three important elements in the conflict: Focus, Passion and a dice pool.
Focus is a measure of how long a character can defend his position/opinion in the conflict: when the Focus drops to 0, this character loses the conflict. Passion on the other hand shows how much impact a character's actions have on his opponent. The dice pool is used to make actions in the conflict.

Determining Focus:

• figure out which of your character's traits apply in the conflict
• add the respective trait levels to get the total trait level (TTL), do the same with the number of insights each of the traits has to get the total insight number (TIN)
• roll [1 + TTL/2] D6 (round down), but at least 2D6 and add the TIN to the result. This is your Focus value – however it may not exceed the maximum score you could have rolled with the dice!

Determining Passion:
this is simply your TLL from this conflict

Resolution Process:

• every participant in the conflict rolls [Passion] D6 to form a resource pool for the conflict. Keep the pool hidden from opponents in the conflict
• the conflict starter has the initiative and may attack. Explanation below
• his opponent reacts to the attack with a defense action. Afterwards, the initiative may have changed
• remove spent dice from the conflict
• whoever has the initiative makes the next attack
• whoever has no more Focus left loses the conflict
• when the participants both have no dice pool left, the participant with the highest Focus value wins. In case of a tie the participant who had the highest Focus at the beginning of the conflict wins.

Attack:

• bring an argument that your opponent cannot ignore
• your attack strength is D6 + Passion. Select one of the D6 from your pool, put it forward for everyone to see and announce the attack strength

Defense: Block

• spend one D6 from your pool with a value greater than that of the attack die to block the attack (a 6 cannot be blocked with a 6!)
• the attack strength is reduced to the attacker's Passion
• reduce your Focus by attack strength
• narrate how your character picks up the attacker's argument and how he disproves it
• you gain the initiative

Defense: Counterattack

• spend two D6 from your pool with a total value that is less than or equal to that of the attack die
• attack strength is reduced to the total value of your spent D6
• reduce your Focus by attack strength
• reduce attacker's Focus by attack strength + your Passion
• narrate an argument that the attacker cannot ignore, but do not disprove his argument
• attacker still has the initiative

Defense: Suffer Damage

• when you cannot take any other defense action or choose not to take another defense action you suffer damage
• reduce your Focus by attack strength
• you may re-roll one of the dice in your pool. If there are no dice left you get a new D6 and roll it
• attacker still has the initiative

I have not decided how exactly conflicts with more than two participants can be handled with this mechanic. I assume that you just decide which participant to attack and that is the only difference, so no specific rule will be needed. My idea for character advancement was that the participants gain one insight for one of their traits they used in the conflict. As a result of the conflict you would get additional traits, depending on how often you took the "suffer damage" option what the arguments were that you could not defend yourself against. This is obviously copied from DitV, will this be a problem? In my opinion it is an interesting mechanic for conflict consequences.

Finally I'll give you some more explanations about my intentions when I designed the trait structure and conflict mechanic. The traits have different levels to represent how much the issue affects the character, so he has to gain a lot of insight before he can solve a great problem, while simple problems can be sorted out with less insight. This can also help the GM with pushing the problems, because he knows what problems deserve the most attention.
I am still undecided how to handle the character goals though. Essentially I'd handle them like a trait, but finding out why I want to create my own business or whatever goal I have seems not so interesting. The other idea is that a goal has a level as well so that it can be treated like a trait in a conflict, but it has no insights. Instead you have a list with steps that need to be done to achieve the goal and assign each step a number. This number of insights on your traits have to be gained before you can complete the step.
Concerning resolution mechanic: I had a few approaches and none of them seemed right because it favored one defense action over the others. That's why I decided to make it a greater than / less or equal choice so that all the dice in the pool are useful. Also a 1 can never be countered and a 6 can never be blocked. What I still would like to add is that the fear-traits will make the character weaker in a conflict if the fear applies (but not so weak if he gained insight for the fear). Sometimes the fear will not apply to the conflict in general, but can come up during an attack (i.e. the attacker argues "we have to respect the law", then the defender's "afraid of breaking the law"-trait applies ). Then the attack would deal more damage than usually.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your input

[markhaselb]

Since I am not getting responses, I have a question: why not? Is the concept to vague? Is there too much too read? Do I fail at communicating what I want to say? Should I ask more questions?
Don't get me wrong, I am not angry because there are no replies to the thread. However I observed that usually someone posts without any questions asked, giving new ideas and controversial thoughts, so I wondered why this doesn't happen here.

[Jonathan Walton]

Hey Mark.  I've spent the past week trying to move to Seattle.  I'm still not really done moving yet and things are crazy, but I'm definitely intending to respond to your post in a bit.  I just didn't want to give you a half-assed response, so I'm waiting until I have time to think about it.

[markhaselb]

That's not a problem Jonathan, moving to another city is the first priority of course, so take your time. Actually I did not expect a reply from you before two weeks. The question was directed more to other posters, because when there is a cause for the lack of responses that I can change, then I can do that. However if the the only reason is that the game is not interesting to them I'll have to live with it.