To the bottom of simplicity, layers approach.

[Megoru]

(I'm italian so please try to understand that I write in a language that is different from my own)
Hi everyone, I've been reading this forum collecting cool ideas for quite some time but this is the first time I start a discussion. I'm eager to see what hints can you give me on this matter, that itself isn't new:
Creating a system that is simple to introduce to people that aren't going to spend much time reading a rulebook, or even try to remember rules heard last week (as in my case)...

After lots of mostly-failed attempts I think I got a decent idea, I'd like to hear from you what you think about it and where can I get some inspiration.

The Layer Strategy:

a) Rules are organized in Layers, every Layer adds dept and detail to the game experience, possibly without disrupting results obtained with the sole application of a lower layer's rule (you should be able to drop a high layer of rules for a fast session without losing coherence)

b) The bottom Layer, or Layer 0, consist of a really simple game that has nothing to do with an rpg. A card game or a dice game that only introduces a basic mechanic.

c) Layer 1 adds some really basic rp concept, like the possibility to choose charachter type, attack type, or something like that.

d) Higher Layers refine the game mechanics.

Layer 0

Here is what I thought could be a good starting mechanic. Layer 0 uses french cards for attack/defence resolution.
Round structure:
0. Every player starts out with a certain number of points. You can represent them with fiches or candies...
1. Card dealing: Every character receives a card from the deck.
2. Attack: Every character in turn can choose to play one or more card from his hand against a target character. This trigger a Defence (3).
3. Defence: When a character is targeted by an attack, he can choose to play one or more card from his hand. If the calculated value of his defence equals or exceeds the value of the attack he defended and suffers no damage, otherwise he loses a point.
4. When every character have taken his turn, restart from 1.
5. Shuffle the discard pile in the deck any time you want.

I thought of a couple ways to sum up values of cards allowing for poker-like combinations and the like. I will discuss this later if it comes out it is necessary.

Now this game won't be very funny even for a card game, but I think it can be a good start:
- It models the concept of attacking/defending as in "Try to use a skill against a value"
- It models the concept of tactical "do-nothing" as you can choose to not play any card this turn and wait for a better hand or a powerful combination.
- It can be played in teams.
- It can be played against static goals (with fixed but unkown values to defeat).

To this we can add a flavour of role playing.

Layer 1

With layer 1 we start talking about different kind of characters and attacks, points represented by fiches become hit points. There are npcs to defeat and everyone get to move a miniature/chess-piece on a grid.

A character/npc/trap/goal now have:
Attack type: [close, ranged]
Attack value: [1-5] , in case of close range attack type it works as parry value too.
Hit Points: [1-5, 5-10 for bosses]

Players could choose from 3-4 different classes, while npcs values should remain unknown. Guessing the parry value of an opponent could be part of the fun.

Characters and npcs can move by 1 square per turn before or after they attack.
When a character/npc attacks, he adds up the value of the card/combo to his Attack value.
When a character/npc defends, he adds up the value of the card/combo to his Parry value if applicable.
Close attacks work only when the target is 1 square away.
Ranged attacks work only when the target is more than 1 square away.
A character can't move through an opponent.
If a player doesn't attack this turn, he can discard a card and move another square.

And that's it.
I think a bit more could be added to layer 1, but I don't want to bother you any further.
Ah, thanks for reading!

[Megoru]

Don't know if it's ok from me to reply on my own thread like this, but I just realized I didn't let out anything worth discussing, so I'm going to explain my idea about the attack/defence resolution.

First of all, the number of cards drawn each round depend on level (or skill + level). Maybe I'll throw in a limit on hand size to represent max fatigue.

So the cards in hand are the character resource for attacking / parrying / skill-using.

Here's how I determine the values to be compared:
Each number card has it's own value,
Each face card (maybe including ace) has value = 5.
Face cards are special, cause they can be used in poker-like combinations.

The basic roll is:
(A number card or A face card combo) + (additional cards)
You can play any kind of card as an additional card, but they'll always have a value of 2 so you can't reach high number just by waiting. You can reach high number saving face cards.

Example combinations:
face card PAIR: value = 10, Effects = 1
face card DOUBLE PAIR: value = 20, Effects = 2
and so on.

Effects are additional tricks as in Donjon.

Thanks for reading!

[Jasper Flick]

I'm going to sidestep the details of your system for a bit. You might be working at cross-purposes with yourself.

Now this game won't be very funny even for a card game, but I think it can be a good start

A good start for what? I see no game there, just a procedure. What's the point of executing the procedure? If you want a layered game, then layer 0 should already - especially - be a complete, fun, playable game. Which raises the question "why introduce more layers at all?".

What is your goal, exactly?

Creating a system that is simple to introduce to people that aren't going to spend much time reading a rulebook, or even try to remember rules heard last week (as in my case)...

Bluntly, you're trying to win people over with a simple start, but then sneak complexity back in. That won't work for people who won't even remember last week's rules. Especially not if "layer 0" isn't much fun to begin with.

Why the need for complexity?

If you want to have fun with a complex game, then perhaps these aren't the people you should be doing it with.

Perhaps "level 0" is a reasonable goal, full stop?

Have you played "simple" RPGs with your buddies? Try something like The Pool. You can explain the mechanics in two minutes. There are plenty of other - far more advanced - games that have simple mechanical execution while supporting elaborate play.

[Megoru]

You are absolutely right Jasper.

I never inteded to play the game mechanic alone, and that's why I named it layer 0... like something that is a bit before the start... that is layer 1.
Having it separated from the rpg elements that come with layer 1 was just a way to introduce the mechanic (wich is only just a prototype right now) without even talking about classes, skills, attributes, and so on. I thought it could be a simple way to appeal someone that think rpgs are boring (I love desperate cases).

About the friends of mine not remembering rules stated the last session... it was kind of a joke. Sorry if it wasn't so clear.

I also want to apologize with everyone because it's very likely that a lot of things I presented like "ideas" are in fact "someone else's ideas" that just happened to linger in my mind for a while. I hope you all don't mind if I go on writing about this "layered-card-thing" for a little while longer.


--- Maybe Layer 2

Don't remember if it comes from my mind, but was also thinking about the possibility to play cards face down, one per turn, as a way to simulate concentration/aiming/mana gathering. Let's say this player hase a mage, he puts a card face down a turn for three turns. The fourth turn he plays a card (or a combo) with the normal mechanic to determine attack value of the spell, then reveal the accumulated face down cards and sums up the value to determine effect/s of the spell.

[Jasper Flick]

So you want a game you can introduce the rules a step at a time, with the intent of going all the way.

Either you're figuring out what's the best way to explain it all at once. In that case, it's ok if stuff doesn't make sense halfway through, as you're not playing yet. Playing cards for the heck of it is ok, as it shows you what to do later, when there's meaningful context.

Or you're introducing rules during play, in which case the system as introduced thus far should make sense and function as a complete game. No playing cards for the heck of it.

In either case, I think you'll probably have to build a functional complete system first, before trying to break it into "levels". Once you have a complete grasp of your game, you will know what the essential and central stuff is. Only then can you know what to introduce first, what is required first during play.
In other words, the order in which you design your system needn't correspond with the order in which it is best introduced.

Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance, typically starts with describing the setting and who you are. Then it goes into character creation, following by an initiation confict, which serves as a "tutorial level" for the conflict mechanics. Then it's the first town, and the game is on.
An important point is that the first step isn't learning a mechanical trick, but getting into the mood and learning who you are and what you're supposed to do. And then not letting go of that mood.

[Megoru]

An important point is that the first step isn't learning a mechanical trick, but getting into the mood and learning who you are and what you're supposed to do. And then not letting go of that mood.

This si something I'd like to discuss, and maybe it's worth opening a new thread.
I'm not completely sure that introducing a game starting by the setting (thus establishing a certain mood) is the best strategy. Not in all cases at least. As you could have guessed my usual group of friends isn't into rpgs at all. Some of them find rpgs intriguing but don't have much time to spend, the others probably think that rp is boring... none of them however refuse to play really simple card games.

Before saying you are 100% right on this point I'd like to try to win them going the other way around the problem: starting with a very simple mechanical game, something it's pretty sure to provoke reactions like "This is pretty simple, can't you do anything else?" and then introducing bit by bit the rpg elements. This will be a "mechanic-first brain-later" approach and if turns out it has a chance to be "fun-first brain-later" it's all the better.

If you know of any discussion/article on this subject please let me know.

[Jasper Flick]

While this isn't a case of shifting between different RPG modes, but rather a case of shifting from non-RPG to RPG, I think Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode is a valuable read.

My point about mood-first-mechanics-later isn't a general truth, but an observation of Dogs in the Vineyard play. I think it's important for Story Now type games, but far less vital to Step On Up type games.

If you're trying to trick your card game buddies into playing an RPG, then baiting them with a card game sounds reasonable. Are you hoping for a "Hey, we've been playing an RPG all this time? But it's fun!"? It's questionable whether you'll ever get that reaction. That's because if you're just going through the motions, while not invested into any kind of imagination, you're not playing the game at all. And if nobody is playing the game for real, the barrier of actually "getting" it an jumping in first is near insurmountable. Because there's no buy-in. So you'll likely end up with a bunch of buddies going through the motions for a while, not getting it, and going back to a card game they do get.

Paraphrasing Ron: "You have to commit to doing it now, with these people, instead of doing something else."

Have you actually asked them directly to play an RPG? You might be able to go along with a tryout. That way you can get explicit buy-in at least once.

A possible danger of using a card-game mechanic for this group is that it might be all they'll see. They'll judge the mechanic using the wrong standards, ignore everything else, will find it wanting, and declare RPGs inferior to "real" card games. Perhaps explicitly not emulating card games is a better option. By giving them something unmistakably different they'll have to judge it based on its own merits. However, what would be the best approach for your case I truly do not know.

[Megoru]

If you're trying to trick your card game buddies into playing an RPG, then baiting them with a card game sounds reasonable. Are you hoping for a "Hey, we've been playing an RPG all this time? But it's fun!"? It's questionable whether you'll ever get that reaction. That's because if you're just going through the motions, while not invested into any kind of imagination, you're not playing the game at all.

I understand this is likely to happen. But since most of them agreed to general idea of rp (I wouldn't even try if there was a simple "no" on their side) I'm aiming to a reaction a bit more like "You can really play an rpg this way? Seems fun, let's try". This because I figured (I may be wrong though) there are two different things that bother them:
1) Lots of rules / complicated mechanics / Lot of maths / Lot of numbers... aka "use lot of brain to understand system"
2) Having to do lot of drama / inventing / general chit-chat before getting to fun part (you'll understand that this guys are more likely to be attracted by the "cool moves" kind of fun instead of the "cool story" one.)

I'm also assuming that from a certain point (hopefully really early), a wise GM can direct the game so that someone say "But how do we convince the mayor that we can complete the quest?" or "Ok, but can we instead ally with the orcs?". And there you introduce a layer that add some narrative options (or simply state you CAN actually role play and that the base mechanic applies to social interaction too).
Simply put, I'd like to trick them ask for it.

[Callan S.]

Hi Megoru,

I think I may understand what your getting at - their kind of playing a card game, playing along, but then yeah, suddenly perhaps they say "But how do we convince the mayor that we can complete the quest?"

The thing is, your layer 1 of rules doesn't engage that or "Ok, but can we instead ally with the orcs?". It's just gone into when can you attack at close range, etc.

I'm thinking to meet your goals you should skip what's in layer 1 and instead have the basic level 0 card game, then the next layer leaps right onto managing how you convince mayors or ally with orcs. Don't bother putting in rules for figures waddling around on a grid. Just straight on to the big questions that will come up, like convincing the mayor. But apart from that, the layer system and looking at it that way seems a really useful way to handle things!


Hi Jasper,

If you think of 3:16 as a basic, level 0 shoot 'em up game, but it extends into a larger framework of rules, that's how Megoru's idea works. Assuming I'm understanding it right.

[Jasper Flick]

Megoru, you've basically said that you're designing a game for a specific group of people, based on what you guess they wouldn't like. That is a very shaky foundation to build upon. A huge improvement would be to abandon the second-guessing and find out how things really are. But whether it's a good idea to design around their prejudices and habits is doubtful at best.

But I've made my point, which is specific for your situation. In general, the concept of layered immersion - be it rule complexity, imagination, or whatever - by design is an interesting one.

If you think of 3:16 as a basic, level 0 shoot 'em up game, but it extends into a larger framework of rules, that's how Megoru's idea works. Assuming I'm understanding it right.

I see no similarity between 3:16 and the concept of a layered complexity/bait design. Both can be considered to have layers of some sort, but that's saying as much as that both have rules to be followed.
Do you suggest that you should sell 3:16 as nothing but a simple kill-aliens dice game at first, then try to sneak in - or hope for spontaneous materialization of - story-type stuff? Check the APs and the book: as far as I know, that's now how the game's played (and yes, I've personally played it by now).

[Jasper Flick]

Oh great, a typo!
"...as far as I know, that's not how the game's played..."

[Megoru]

to Jasper:
Relax, I'm not going to blame you for a single typo...

Your point is absolutely right... It's just that it is not what I'm concerned about in this moment. I wanted to hear what the community had to tell about a prototype of extensible system based on a symple card-game like mechanic.

It is surely all my fault for not asking this directly:

1) Do you know of any good system centered on a card base mechanic (aka no-dice).
2) Is it even possible to have a 'sound' system centered on cards?
3) Will it be fun?
4) Do you think the basic idea I presented is a good start?
5) Do you find the basic idea I presented is already used in another bad/good system I should know of?


However... I don't think that not stating directly that a game should have a 'narrative' element will completely exclude the possibility to introduce such element right away or a little later. I was just saying that I wanted to use a machanic that COULD be used to play a game that doesn't have a 'narrative' element.
Hope this settle the thing a bit.

[Jasper Flick]

1,2,3: There are definitely RPGs that use cards to great effect. I myself only know the rules of one though: Primetime Adventures.

4,5: It kind of reminds me of Munchkin the card game, and for such a game it might be a good start.

I was just saying that I wanted to use a machanic that COULD be used to play a game that doesn't have a 'narrative' element.

That is a valid desire. But really, you could tag a 'narrative' to any game that has some kind of flavor. You could play Settlers of Catan, or even Monopoly, and imagine all kinds of stuff around it. However, you'll find that it virtually never happens. That is exactly because it isn't required. When a game functions just fine without any kind of imagination, there's probably nothing that really encourages you to imagine at all. So it's fine if you personally don't really desire that 'narrative' part, but if you explicitly want 'narrative', you're better served by a game that pushes it.

Somewhat relevant post at Anyway: Restating: Fictional Causes and Realization.

[Catelf]

Hi.
I know it is a kind of breach of etiqette to suggest one's own Game, or Game System, but in this case, i dare say it's valid.
Since you are looking for something simple, you can check it out, it's Main Rules are put down in the Playtesting Forum somewhere, under the name [Ferals].

Now to your questions:
1: I know of a kind of Storytelling Card Game called "Once upon a time...", but i don't know if it would fit what you are looking for ..... it might give you some inspiration, though.
Magic (the Gathering) might be handled in .... creative ways, but you do need to be really creative, then, it may not be obvious.
Oh yes! How could i forget Munchkin?! That is an excellent Hack'nSlash Fun Card Game.
2: Yes, why not? Still, creativity, a good feel for Game Mechanism, and Playtesting is what is needed, as usual.
3: That usually depends on the mechanisms, and the one acting GM or similar.
4: Yes, i'm all for simple rules and easy starts: My own game can be presented as a simple "Shoot & Slice" Miniatures game to begin with, then you add Player-made characters, and then a few Skills, and lastly the full brunt: Magic and other things.
5: .............. Maybe someone else knows?

Turning a non-narrative card game into a narrative ......
I suggest you try tuning "Magic" , or "Munchkin", into a Narrative, this would make it easier for you to see what you need, and possibly don't need, to manage your project.

While i was typing this, Jaspers came before ... oh well.....
Hope i don't seem too stupid.

Interesting idea, by the way ..... i'm clearly curious!

Curious Cat

[Callan S.]

I was just saying that I wanted to use a machanic that COULD be used to play a game that doesn't have a 'narrative' element.

That is a valid desire. But really, you could tag a 'narrative' to any game that has some kind of flavor. You could play Settlers of Catan, or even Monopoly, and imagine all kinds of stuff around it. However, you'll find that it virtually never happens. That is exactly because it isn't required. When a game functions just fine without any kind of imagination, there's probably nothing that really encourages you to imagine at all. So it's fine if you personally don't really desire that 'narrative' part, but if you explicitly want 'narrative', you're better served by a game that pushes it.

Somewhat relevant post at Anyway: Restating: Fictional Causes and Realization.

I don't want to go too far off track, but as far as I understand the rules of 3:16, it can be played without a narrative. There's this cultural force with roleplayers that seems to define roleplay in terms that if you don't imagine, the game crashes and burns.

But with new indie games like capes, escape from tentacle city, 3:16 and more as time goes by, as far as I can tell you can play without narrative. The thing is, narrative enriches the game, like, by a hundred times or so. Instead of making games which self destruct without narrative, new games are being made which are instead tons more fun with narrative. But they do not self destruct without a narrative. What encourages you to roleplay is not a big bad stick of the whole session will be ruined, but instead the carrot that with narrative things are a hundred times sexier hot. You seem to be focused on a game that pushes imagination by having the session crash and burn if imagination isn't there. While that's not my prefered option by far, I'll grant it's an option - but it isn't the only option, that's for sure. I don't think Megoru is making any mistake here.

But for this topic I think my point on the 'convince the mayor' was actually important - though it didn't seem to be taken up for discussion...so...darn!