[Nevercast] - A hyper-simulationist role-playing game, overview

[JoyWriter]

I'll start with combat stuff first:

Jabbing your opponent repeatedly won't do it because your opponent's Effect Reduction, based off of his strength, is likely to reduce the effect to a superficial status, such as the "stun" effect, or may negate the effect entirely.

I think I see, so does effect reduction behave as a static reduction of effect? And if so, are the various types of defences balanced against each other, so that although someone might have total effect reduction to force or injury, they will not have the same level of defence to fear? That sounds like it would encourage cagey information-gathering tactics at first, until their weaknesses have been discovered, and then focusing on attacks that influence those. How would you deal with the old meta-game information problem? IE where players skip the first step by finding out the weakness of enemies from the books themselves. The solutions I have seen have been players intentionally sabotaging their tactical knowledge appropriate to their character's experience, slight randomisation or customisation of enemy stats in order to make previous knowledge no advantage, or systems that allow people to claim character experience of things they know about in order to smooth suspension of disbelief.

If you dodge, you get a counterattack bonus because you are already in the position to counter and you have the advantage of timing while your opponent recovers from his attack.

This reminds me of a more fuzzy version of beat-em-up combos, and the chains of attacks in games like soul calibur. It sounds like you could produce some extra complexity by subverting basic chains with resistances, blocking off common successor attacks so people have to shift tactics around a bit. Considering the beat-em-up analogy, have you considered making special "linking moves" or similar that provide different sets of bonuses, and allow someone to create character specific move loops?

On the other hand, If I am outside of striking range, and I try to charge in, then I am going to telegraph myself to my opponent and he will have a wonderful opportunity to interrupt me with a sharp blow.  Therefore, I need to close the range by 1) distracting him 2) using my "concentration" or  an extra combat action to time his rhythm, which will improve my success rate with the d4 randomizer 3) using the "combat step" to move in without fear of retribution, assuming he wants to fight close and doesn't back up 4) waiting for the opponent to make the first move instead.

What about the old bjj standby? Pushing someone into a wall? I bring this up because it's really easy to envisage conflicts as occurring between two people against a blank background, or even a few people against the same background. Now that may be what you want; if conflict is to be an expression of character first and foremost, but the difference is like the difference between fight scenes in the Bourne films and the corridor scene in old boy. Both have similarities, both cinematically effective, very different dynamics.

On differing ranges, that should make things interesting, but how much does the level of skill vary between ranges? Also how much player learning is required to move from one to another, or are they all on the same basis? (Which I think seems to be roll to hit, effect vs effect reduction)

That tradeoff has been coming up repeatedly in the design of my own game; if I make different kinds of conflict follow the same lines, they will be less distinct, both from the perspective of character differentiation and in-play tactical choices, but on the other hand I don't want to increase player difficulty. I'd rather have anyone be capable of going into a really cramped brawl, without their players becoming confused, but if the specialists could pull out something appropriately special in that situation. In another game I might be quite happy for a player to actually have less information on their sheet about wrestling if their character has no proficiency at it, with minigames opening up for those who do.

Could you give me an example of interruption by faster attacks?

On the tactics side of things, I can see how such a system would simulate that situation well, but I can also imagine an extreme "build" of a team, where most of the team emphasise tactics, and only a few focus on skill, in shooting for example. This would hilariously give the gun guy huge multiples of actions as everyone chucks advice at him from every side. Ways to avoid this being optimum? I'd carefully adjust the advantages of simultaneous action so that it is still better to have a team doing stuff than a single man doing everything. You could also institute diminishing returns on giving people extra actions, but I think that's a less fun alternative.


Also I'd like to hear why the exploding d4 is so magic, I've run some thought experiments myself, but all I can spot about it is that it provides a sort of tiered approximation to an inverse relationship between probability and degree of bonus, so I'd like to hear what's good about it for your purposes.

On social interactions, I agree with the principle, if you can't see a reason for a rule don't put it in, just make it clear who is meant to decide that stuff. On the other hand there are restrictions you can make of a player that are very valuable, because of how they express your setting, and encourage creativity.

On your specific implementation, it sounds similar to what we've been discussing here, the characterisation of charisma as a shield to people understanding you is logical given your system and an interesting view, it reminds me of the definition I've heard of "polish".

[Ar Kayon]

"I think I see, so does effect reduction behave as a static reduction of effect? And if so, are the various types of defences balanced against each other, so that although someone might have total effect reduction to force or injury, they will not have the same level of defence to fear? That sounds like it would encourage cagey information-gathering tactics at first, until their weaknesses have been discovered, and then focusing on attacks that influence those. "
- You have various forms of effect reduction (cutting, blunt force trauma, penetrating, etc.), which generally won't take much investigation to figure out: if he's wearing a bullet proof vest, you can easily assume what attacks will penetrate and what won't: a 9 mm handgun won't, but a .556 assault rifle will, and a knife could get through as well.  This is assuming the Nevercast setting, of course; if I did a fantasy setting then yes, there would probably be information gathering on various beasts.
Much of the information gathering, especially in close-quarters combat, is determining your opponent's abilities based upon how he responds to your actions.  The GM will not tell you what your opponent's attributes are, nor will he reveal the gradient of success or tell-tale qualifiers: instead of saying, "your opponent passed his attack by 2, which means you suffer the hurt effect (sounds stupid anyway)", the GM may say "you get struck hard in the face as your vision spins and goes blurry".  This point will be highlighted in the game mastering section of the manual.


"How would you deal with the old meta-game information problem? IE where players skip the first step by finding out the weakness of enemies from the books themselves."
- In Nevercast, your opponents are humans; they have no peculiar strengths or weaknesses against certain attacks, unless if their armor provides it.  Therefore, I don't see this concern affecting gameplay.


"This reminds me of a more fuzzy version of beat-em-up combos, and the chains of attacks in games like soul calibur. It sounds like you could produce some extra complexity by subverting basic chains with resistances, blocking off common successor attacks so people have to shift tactics around a bit. Considering the beat-em-up analogy, have you considered making special "linking moves" or similar that provide different sets of bonuses, and allow someone to create character specific move loops?"
- Fighting strategies are based upon reality.  For example, as a boxer, I have first hand experience of why dodging is so hard to pull off, yet advantageous should you succeed.  I have no desire to base the combat system on a fighting game, that is a simulation of a simulation.  Besides, the tactical freedom already exists to create a myriad of strategies and counter strategies, which prevents munchkins from exploiting the "best strategy".


"What about the old bjj standby? Pushing someone into a wall?"
- You certainly can.  Grappling rules use the same core mechanics as striking rules, and takes your environment into consideration (being up against a wall creates the "cramped" effect, and makes it easier for an opponent to pin you), therefore you should have no difficulty transitioning from striking to grappling.  However, if you want to push someone into a wall or execute many other grappling strategies, you need to be close.  If I am outside range, I'm going to telegraph myself rushing in.  Even BJJ exponents feint before going for the shoot.


"On differing ranges, that should make things interesting, but how much does the level of skill vary between ranges? Also how much player learning is required to move from one to another, or are they all on the same basis? (Which I think seems to be roll to hit, effect vs effect reduction)"
- You don't roll to hit; success is based upon attribute comparison, modified by whatever technique you are using (e.g. takedown = agility-2 vs. opponent's resist = strength).  You only roll when you use effort or spend combat actions to time your technique.  I decided to utilize diceless core mechanics because they preserve the integrity of strategy.  Although I acknowledge the existence of fortune in Nevercast - especially in regards to things that must be modeled with chaotic elements - I certainly don't want it dictating play and undermining intelligent choices.
Your range dictates which general strategies are ideal.  For example, if I'm really close, a grappler is going to have the advantage, or a strong guy is going to have the advantage over a fast guy.  So, it's less dependent upon how skilled your character is, and more dependant upon what kinds of skills he has, and how you utilize them to your advantage.  Thus, with intelligence on the player's part, exploiting the opponent's mistakes, you can beat the man greater in prowess and skill.  Other systems rely much more heavily on raw ability.


"Could you give me an example of interruption by faster attacks?"
- Chuck Norris attacks Bruce Lee with a spinning roundhouse kick.  Bruce Lee responds with a short front kick.  Since strikes are based on your speed attribute, compare speed vs. speed (Bruce has the advantage because a quick attack has a higher speed than a power attack).  The highest speed strikes first, but that doesn't guarantee a hit.  Since your opponent cannot actively defend while attacking, the strike is compared against his Passive Defense score.  So, only if Bruce is able to stun or hurt Chuck will the attack actually interrupt his blow, otherwise Chuck, the slower opponent, will compare his speed against Bruce's Passive Defense score.  So, what happens if the attribute comparison is equal?  Then the opponents strike at the same time, and there's a possibility of them hitting each other - hell there's even a possibility of them knocking each other out!
You can also try to beat your opponent to the draw in a firefight.


"On the tactics side of things, I can see how such a system would simulate that situation well, but I can also imagine an extreme "build" of a team, where most of the team emphasise tactics, and only a few focus on skill, in shooting for example. This would hilariously give the gun guy huge multiples of actions as everyone chucks advice at him from every side."
Hahaha!  Sounds like when I'm driving with a bunch of women in the backseat!  You misunderstand: you don't get extra actions for responding to a command.  You have 3 actions to use for the entire round, so if you run out and you want to respond, you have to wait until the next round.  Some commands may require you to wait until the beginning of the next round in order to execute it, but I am still working the mechanics out for it.


"Also I'd like to hear why the exploding d4 is so magic, I've run some thought experiments myself, but all I can spot about it is that it provides a sort of tiered approximation to an inverse relationship between probability and degree of bonus, so I'd like to hear what's good about it for your purposes."
- I spent about a long time trying to translate that sentence!
I like the d4 for several reasons: the fortune element is small and doesn't outweigh the static elements (diceless attribute comparison), but when it explodes, it offers me the potential to score a long-shot: 1 in 4 on a single roll, 1 in 16 on a double, 1 in 64 on a quadruple and so on.  I really like the balance and modularity the d4 gives me. 
It also explodes in the reverse to model critical failures.  When you're firing a gun, for instance, natural ones can represent the gun jamming or even failing, depending upon how many you roll in a row.  Therefore, I don't have to roll along a separate critical failure table. 

[Ar Kayon]

Nevercast Professions (Please inquire for further elaboration)

1. Wanderer

2. Hunter
-Technology Hunter
-Information Hunter

3. Master
-Master of Martial Arts
-Master of Internal Arts
-Master of the Sciences

4. Special Operations
-Soldier
-Mercenary

5. Operative
-Intelligence Operative
-Assassin
-Freelance/Rogue Operative

6. Emissary

7. Smuggler
-Arms Dealer
-Technology Dealer

8. Mastermind
-Securities Mastermind
-Systems Mastermind

[JoyWriter]

I like the d4 for several reasons: the fortune element is small and doesn't outweigh the static elements (diceless attribute comparison), but when it explodes, it offers me the potential to score a long-shot: 1 in 4 on a single roll, 1 in 16 on a double, 1 in 64 on a quadruple and so on.  I really like the balance and modularity the d4 gives me. 

Yeah, that's what I was talking about; the more bonus you get, the more unlikely it is. You can accentuate that process though, by rolling a single dice and going odds or evens, with evens corresponding to a single success, and odds to a single failure. In that version you would line up d6s as you rolled them, either as positives or negatives, stopping when you stop your run of failures or successes (you could do the same with coins too, heads vs tails). This is the most pure system I can think of that represents that above idea. I referred to the d4 system as a tiered approximation because if you draw the probability graph there are steps of constant probability corresponding to 1->3 on a particular dice (corresponding to the numbers 0->2), and then the next tier down for numbers 1->3 on the next dice (corresponding to numbers 3->5), if you use something like the runs idea, then you still get the same 1 in 4, 1 in 16, but the intervening results scale more smoothly, as 1 in 8. Now naturally this difference in scaling will change things: (the table ignores critical failures)

value	old probability	new probability
0	1/4	1/2
1	1/4	1/4
2	1/4	1/8
3	1/16	1/16
4	1/16	1/32
5	1/16	1/64
6	1/64	1/128
7	1/64	1/256

ie although it is a purer representation of that idea, it gives a slightly lower variance on results, but more importantly, half the average bonus. You can doctor this by adding 1 automatically to the roll, but that obviously has it's own effects!

The GM will not tell you what your opponent's attributes are, nor will he reveal the gradient of success or tell-tale qualifiers: instead of saying, "your opponent passed his attack by 2, which means you suffer the hurt effect (sounds stupid anyway)", the GM may say "you get struck hard in the face as your vision spins and goes blurry".  This point will be highlighted in the game mastering section of the manual.

Interesting, so as much as possible, game terms are to be transferred into description? Presumably that's a big part of why you have effects rather than a wound system or hp, although in order for players to make decisions they'll still need to know how it effects their stats/ability to do actions. This naturally has an impact when it comes to doing calculations and recording effects; presumably you'll want the GM to do all calculations? But then the impression I get is that is just comparing values, subtracting the lower and reading off lookup tables for the effect right? Subject to prevention characteristics that the characters have. Straightforward, providing you create a set of really clear and easily differentiated tables.

Where it does get interesting is the split between what players will presumably have in front of them; a record of effects on their character either in their own terms or in official game terms, possible actions and stats/skills/equipment that relate to them. What the GM needs to have in front of him; stats/equipment that character has relating to effect reduction, but also all the effects their equipment/stats/skills are capable of.

The GM will also then be required to narrate all the results of everyone's actions, because the players won't have access to the information to do the narration themselves, because they don't know their degree of success.

It's an interesting split, players would be able to engage only with descriptions of intent, or with the description of their own actions divorced from others, mentioning only how they fire or move to punch, not the effect on the other character, and nor would the player effected be able to narrate the effect on their character. This means that one kind of narration division, a very traditional one, is built into the game from the start.

One friend of mine would be very fond of this, because he likes as much of that as possible to be behind a fog of ignorance, and base his decisions on imaginary inference. Another friend of mine would very much dislike this, because those systems that allow you to narrate your own character's failure allow him a bit of face-saving this does not provide. On the other hand, part of why he wants to do face-saving is because of the danger of random chance to make his supposed super-spy look like an idiot, so he might feel more secure with a system that means the only threat to success is a greater-skilled opponent. A third would immediately start to try to reconstruct the rules system from the descriptions given!

It also has some slightly dull results, of duplication and syncing of the two equipment records/announcing equipment changes, etc, which can be mostly covered by quick questions back and forth or by particularly mentioning the equipment used either in the player's narration or from GM's who listens out for corrections. Or just by frequent sheet passing.


You've said about terrain types, and their effects. How do you envisage the distances between different parts of the terrain factoring into the abstract range system you've got going on? At the moment I can easily envisage two people in a pretty sparse environment, as I mentioned before, with the distance between them being the priority. What about when obstacles start getting added to the environment? And how will you represent that in play? Grid/hex maps? Networks with different locations as nodes? Sketches and mental pictures with some looseness as to exact distance, and looseness in movement to match?

You can also try to beat your opponent to the draw in a firefight.

I see, but what contests are not down to speed? It seems that many of the actions your characters will be getting into; shooting vs shooting vs dodging vs strikes depend first and foremost on speed. There is a certain realism in that naturally, speed vs accuracy being the basic tradeoff in marksmanship, but at the moment I can only see a single variable being used. Do you distinguish fast shot/aimed shot or fast strike/precise strike?

[Ar Kayon]

Response 1: On Dice
-  I will admit that the d6 method your propose is a smoother scale, however I can imagine it would slow down play more so than the d4.  When I work out mechanics for Nevercast, I usually weigh granularity against calculation speed.  If the slowdown is greater than the benefit offered by the increased granularity, then I choose not to implement the rule.  You said so yourself that the d6 method presents a decrease of granularity, so I cannot sacrifice that along with calculation speed for the sake of a smoother scale.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a stickler for dice purity, and I will store this idea for contemplation when I'm working on my other projects.


Response 2: On Player Ignorance
- To really suck players into my pocket universe, I don't want to give them more information and feedback than they would get in real life.  When I hit my opponent in a sparring match, I generally have little idea on how my strikes affect him; it may feel like I struck him hard, but he could have a very high threshold for injury.  So, what I want to portray to the players in the heat of combat is only what is apparent.

Now, it's not a rule that the GM play exactly like this - I choose not to interfere with style - however, it is a guideline that will be presented in the Game Mastering section of the manual.  On a side note, guidelines on altering the rules will also be covered in the Game Mastering section, and it will advise against altering specific rules (especially the finely-tuned numbers, which could unbalance play) and propose altering general rules instead, such as the choice to remove dice completely.

Lastly, I don't care who doesn't like these rules, as long as my target audience loves them.  Who are part of my target audience?  People who love crunchy and gritty games.  Although Nevercast certainly doesn't inhibit narration what with its vividly-realized, complex and charged setting - along with what you stated, that how the system controls fortune provides security to narration - it is not aimed at those who prefer the rules-lite, role-playing/narration style of gaming.

"It's an interesting split, players would be able to engage only with descriptions of intent, or with the description of their own actions divorced from others, mentioning only how they fire or move to punch, not the effect on the other character, and nor would the player effected be able to narrate the effect on their character. This means that one kind of narration division, a very traditional one, is built into the game from the start."
- This is exactly the intent, and I'm glad it's apparent.


Response 3: On Terrain and Range
- Distance increments are very concrete in Nevercast and utilize a grid map.
Example:

"Fighting Ranges
There are 5 available fighting ranges in close-quarters combat: very long, long, outside,  inside, and cramped.  Each range type is ideally suited to particular expressions of close-quarters combat, and ill-suited to others.  (See table x for applicable bonuses and penalties to various attack types.)

Range 4: Very Long Range
The very long range is 4 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if  a combatant is using a long range weapon and has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability.

Range 3: Long Range
The long range is 3 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if a combatant is using a long range weapon, or is using an outside range weapon and has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability.

Range 2: Outside Range
The outside range is 2 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if a combatant has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability, or if the combatant is using a weapon that normally allows attacks within this range.  You may only utilize striking or weapon attacks from the outside range.  This range is best suited for melee weapon strikes.

Range 1: Inside Range
The inside range is 1 range increment away from a determined opponent.  You may utilize all forms of close-quarters attacks within this range.  The inside range is best suited for unarmed strikes and small melee weapon strikes.

Range 1: Cramped Range
The cramped range is 1 range increment away from a determined opponent.  Opponents who are fighting in the cramped range are very close to each other, often in contact.  The cramped range is best suited for grappling techniques.  Despite being at 1 range increment away, a combatant can only use a combat step to move to the cramped range from the inside range, and not from the outside range."


Response 4: On Speed
- Speed governs strikes and interruptions, along with how much maximum distance you can cover in a single movement.  Grabs, locks, and warding off (including parries, weapon disarming and many reversals) are based upon dexterity.  Feints, combat sequence, blocks, slips, taking cover from gunfire or dashing out of the way is based upon reflex.  A great deal of grappling is based upon agility, along with dodging, evasion and complex movements.  Strength allows you to brute-force grappling, taxing your stamina effort pool.  It also allows you to take hits better, and along with speed, determines your Power attribute.  Focus and Awareness make up your Concentration effort pool, which is extremely important for combat characters and especially the Master of Martial Arts profession.  I've spent a great deal of time balancing out attributes, and  right now I see no preference that a player can exploit; it all depends upon your style. 

Shooting a gun is based upon your Focus attribute (as Focus models depth perception as well as your ability to concentrate on a single thing with intensity).  However, when it comes to two people shooting each other at the same time, speed comes into play. 

As far as precision is concerned, that is modeled by either using your Concentration effort pool or using extra combat actions.  Naturally, if you're using extra combat actions to aim at your opponent, the guy who responds is going to shoot first and the shot will be compared against your passive defense score.  So if you want to aim, do it behind cover! 

On a side note, a gunman can assume a profiled position when firing single-handedly in order to improve his passive defense score.

[Ar Kayon]

Interesting, so as much as possible, game terms are to be transferred into description? Presumably that's a big part of why you have effects rather than a wound system or hp, although in order for players to make decisions they'll still need to know how it effects their stats/ability to do actions. This naturally has an impact when it comes to doing calculations and recording effects; presumably you'll want the GM to do all calculations? But then the impression I get is that is just comparing values, subtracting the lower and reading off lookup tables for the effect right? Subject to prevention characteristics that the characters have. Straightforward, providing you create a set of really clear and easily differentiated tables.

You've nailed my intentions here.  It's good to know that I'm communicating clearly.

I firmly believe, for the purposes of my game, that a descriptive method will offer more exciting gameplay than a numerical method.  I also think it makes for more streamlined gameplay.  This is important because a game with such complexity needs to be as streamlined as possible.  My goal is to create an elegant system, not a clunky hodgepodge that includes everything but the kitchen sink. 

Players do not need to know in quantifiable terms how effects influence their actions.  All they need to know is that they're weaker from exerting so much physical effort, or that they're limping from being shot in the leg.  Obvious effects should be clear, however; the player should be informed that they are off-balance so he knows to spend a combat action to recover.  The GM is going to have to play around with how he presents information to the player, and I will be able to expound upon effective ways to do so in the Game Mastering section after a few playtesting sessions.

[Adam Dray]

On a side note, a gunman can assume a profiled position when firing single-handedly in order to improve his passive defense score.

And minimize the use of his vest, by the way.


On topic:

Do you have in mind any kind of upper limit for how much handling time the average combat will take? For example, if it takes 50 minutes to resolve a typical combat, is that okay?

The system of aggregating and aggravating conditions looks an awful lot like a death spiral. Does the first person to land a blow get a significant advantage?

Real fights are chaotic and unpredictable. Outside of controlled sparring, such as boxing matches, it is rare to really plan a strategy during a fight. People just sorta grab each other and throw wild punches. Most fights end up on the ground. Outdoors, you might be slammed down onto asphalt or a broken bottle. How does this reality match up with the "realism" of your game design?

[Ar Kayon]

Do you have in mind any kind of upper limit for how much handling time the average combat will take? For example, if it takes 50 minutes to resolve a typical combat, is that okay?

The system of aggregating and aggravating conditions looks an awful lot like a death spiral. Does the first person to land a blow get a significant advantage?

Real fights are chaotic and unpredictable. Outside of controlled sparring, such as boxing matches, it is rare to really plan a strategy during a fight. People just sorta grab each other and throw wild punches. Most fights end up on the ground. Outdoors, you might be slammed down onto asphalt or a broken bottle. How does this reality match up with the "realism" of your game design?

On Combat Length
- How long combat takes to resolve is not a concern of mine, especially if the players are engaged.  I believe that the system is intellectually rewarding, and that some players may even desire a long exchange as a result.  To put it into perspective, a lot of people love chess, but chess games can easily take up an hour or more.  In my opinion, it is the complexity and intellectual substance of the game that allows it to be playable for extended periods of time.

As of right now, I cannot comment on how long it actually takes to resolve combat on average, as there is the possibility for a 1-round resolution as well as a stalemate between the same parties involved.  Well played strategies on both sides could mean a lengthy bout, but a long exchange will never be inherent of the system in of itself.  For example, in Dungeons and Dragons, players and enemies may have large quantities of hit points, along with healing powers to keep the fight going (in 3.5 especially, rules bloat alone can cause lengthy encounters).  In contrast, there are no abstract health quantities here (skilled combatants are just as mortal as everyone else), and there are no instant health boosts or powers, such as potions/stimpacks/spells etc.  Also, my mechanics are designed to be easily referenced and memorized, and all numerical values are kept as small as possible in order to keep calculation times to a minimum.


On the death spiral
- It is possible to catch your opponent in a death spiral, however that usually happens if you play the fight well.  Just because you hit someone doesn't mean they're fucked.  Your opponent still has a chance to recover from the blow in time (combat time is a very important factor in combat, and doesn't just affect turn order).  Or if the effect of your attack is lasting, he may still alter his strategy to compensate.  For example, your opponent may tax his concentration effort pool to improve the chances of his defense.  The tactical freedom exists to stave your opponent long enough to recover.  In other games, your choices may be generalized (e.g. your defensive abilities and your armor is all lumped together into Armor Class) and subject to flat penalties, which makes it easier to be caught in a death spiral.


On realism
- NPCs in the Game Mastering section of the manual have a strategic profile, meaning, "this is what they typically do" in a given scenario.  Thus, depending upon the competency of the given NPC type, the GM will be encouraged to increase or decrease your opponent's command of strategy as is appropriate.  An experienced soldier is not going to spray and prey wildly on maximum kill mode, but fire short precise bursts, stay behind cover and coordinate with his team.  A master of martial arts (a playable profession) is not going to slug it out wildly, but cautiously tease out your responses and force a mistake.  A regular person is going to slug it out and/or take it to the ground, or just avoid the fight entirely.

As far as the player is concerned, the GM may decide to impose a time limit on how long you may take to determine your action, and then take away that action if you take too long, meaning that you hesitate.  This idea was adopted from another forge poster's ideas, who touted its success in execution, and it will be covered in the game mastering section.  Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section.

[Adam Dray]

Regarding realism, why does the responsibility for the realism of some things go to the GM while that of other things goes to the mechanics? I mean, I understand that you have to draw a line somewhere. Why have you drawn a line where you did?

Maybe the answer is as simple as, "I am just not interested in simulating certain things." That's fine. But you tout this as "a hyper-simulationist role-playing game," and I'm trying to understand what that means to you.

For example, in my mind, the inexperienced fighter takes the fight to the ground because he sorta has to.* It's instinct. Being on the ground minimizes the other guy's advantages, even if he's had some fighting experience (perhaps especially if he's had some typical martial arts experience). But also there's this psychological thing that happens in fights where most of your fucking training goes out the door and you're just fighting like a madman. Maybe some of your training is back there subconsciously helping a little. Why leave that to the GM?

You said, "Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section."  Why do you call this a meta-gaming concern?

* Yes, for this example, I'm intentionally ignoring martial arts styles that "live" on the ground.

[Ar Kayon]

For example, in my mind, the inexperienced fighter takes the fight to the ground because he sorta has to.* It's instinct. Being on the ground minimizes the other guy's advantages, even if he's had some fighting experience (perhaps especially if he's had some typical martial arts experience). But also there's this psychological thing that happens in fights where most of your fucking training goes out the door and you're just fighting like a madman. Maybe some of your training is back there subconsciously helping a little. Why leave that to the GM?

You said, "Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section."  Why do you call this a meta-gaming concern?

The psychological response is covered in the mechanics, and is not up to the GM's subjective interpretations.  Therefore, I do not consider it a meta-game concern.  If you fail your composure check, then you suffer penalties to fine motor skills and concentration.  If you fail your composure check by a moderate amount, then skilled maneuvers will not be available to you.  If you fail by the maximum amount, then you are frozen in fear.  The concentration effort pool may be used to eventually subdue those effects and get you back into fighting form.  This represents your ability to overcome to some degree the initial shock of the experience.

Maybe the answer is as simple as, "I am just not interested in simulating certain things." That's fine. But you tout this as "a hyper-simulationist role-playing game," and I'm trying to understand what that means to you.

It would be absurd for me to try and simulate style.  That is entirely up to the GM, and it is a meta-game concern.  I am not interested in pigeonholing style as long as the GM's methods aren't arbitrary and do not interfere with the internal logic of the game.   

Here is a list of some style topics I have so far:
1. Adjusting the difficulty via tactical/strategic change
2. Streamlining play by imposing time limits on choice
3. Creating meaningful party combinations for session/campaign construction
4. How to avoid revealing quantifiers and qualifiers; narration roles (I should emphasize that narration roles are concrete and do not change; it's not part of style, but is a reference point for style).
5. Encouraging the creative use of character skills during social interaction and preventing circular/boring exchanges; balancing out GM/player input.
6. Pacing the session and prodding the character's motivations without railroading.
7. Role-playing the character development process.

[David Berg]

Hi Ar,

I dig your goals, ideas, and many of your techniques.  Here's a scattershot response to various topics from this thread.  Feel free to use other threads (or whatever organizational technique you'd prefer) to address ones that don't fit into the discussion you've got rolling now.

"Realism"
I'm pondering the "simulation of realism" here. 
- There seems to be a high priority on sensible outcomes. 
- There seems to be a low priority on simulating in-game time (a fight that takes a character 2 minutes may take a player 30 minutes). 
- There seems to be a high priority on simulating characters' imperfect information (describe damage taken only in ways understood by the character), except when there isn't (a successful skill use conclusively reveals an NPC's philosophy, something the PC has no way of knowing in-game).  Combat is a huge departure from real-world information levels, for reasons Adam's already explained.
- The priority regarding experiential simulation in terms of emotion is unclear; this is something that sensible outcomes and character-POV info will help, and high mechanics handling time (if present; I'm not assuming!) will hurt. 
- There is no priority regarding sensation -- we're playing table-top, not LARPing.

Is this an accurate take?  If so, are you comfortable with all of it?

I know you're interested in honing your explanation of the game.  Thinking about it in this manner might help.  Different gamers focus on different elements of "realistic simulation".  Some prefer to observe it, some prefer to feel it, and others demand both.

Familiarity, reference
There's an interesting disjunct between the familiarity given by realistic resolution and the complete unfamiliarity of playing some badass in a partly alien setting.  As a player, I'd be wondering, "What's my frame of reference here?"  What sorts of stories are supposed to come out of this game?  Is there a genre, movie, or book I ought to know?  Do I need to read tons of setting info to know what my character would know, thus informing his decisions?

Play activity
Is this a cooperative game?  If so, what brings the player characters together, keeps them together, and rewards them together?

Combat
The details of the combat system tell me little about the core of what I'd be looking to experience if I played Nevercast.  For players who've never been in a fist-, sword- or gun-fight, "realism" gets pretty abstract.  If I was playing a character who thought the way real people do, I'd probably try to avoid violence anyway.

[Ar Kayon]

First, I need to highlight some of your points that require clarification in order for me to address properly.

For example, you said,

There seems to be a high priority on simulating characters' imperfect information

But you follow up with,

Combat is a huge departure from real-world information levels, for reasons Adam's already explained.

1. How do you believe combat is a huge departure from real-world information levels?
2. And which of Adam's points are you referring to?

- The priority regarding experiential simulation in terms of emotion is unclear; this is something that sensible outcomes and character-POV info will help, and high mechanics handling time (if present; I'm not assuming!) will hurt.
- There is no priority regarding sensation -- we're playing table-top, not LARPing.

I'm going to need a plain speak translation of these two points as I don't understand them.


On realism
- The things I chose not to model were a deliberate choice.  This is because I simply cannot expect my players to calculate so many factors without imposing upon the play experience negatively.  For example, you don't have to make an agility check every time you take a step in your house to make sure you didn't trip over something.

The same goes for translating real world time to game time.  Naturally, combat takes longer for players to resolve in real time.  You're describing your actions and the GM is describing the results; you're not actually performing these actions.  Therefore, in a turn-based, descriptive format, it only made sense for me to accurately model the sequence of events unfolding in real time.

a successful skill use conclusively reveals an NPC's philosophy, something the PC has no way of knowing in-game

-Those mechanics are still in their infancy.  The idea is you have generalized philosophical and personality profiles, which can be ascertained by paying close attention to various nuances in the NPC's speech and behavior.  So what I didn't intend to imply was that you knew he was against abortion by how he scratches his beard!  You make a good point though, and I will use it to refine my goals toward these mechanics.

Familiarity, reference
There's an interesting disjunct between the familiarity given by realistic resolution and the complete unfamiliarity of playing some badass in a partly alien setting. As a player, I'd be wondering, "What's my frame of reference here?" What sorts of stories are supposed to come out of this game? Is there a genre, movie, or book I ought to know? Do I need to read tons of setting info to know what my character would know, thus informing his decisions?

- I'm not sure I can adequately answer these questions.  As far as the motif is concerned, please refer to the setting discussion on the various elements (iron element, heaven, etc.).  What I intend to do is provide the GM with all of the appropriate tools to flesh out his own stories and interpretations without imposing restrictions on style.

In relation to the players, I don't expect them to read a huge amount of setting info.  To offer some perspective, I live in America, but I don't know a damn thing about at least 35 of its states or its various subcultures.  So, why should I expect the player to know what a positronium gamma ray laser or the Cult of the Star is in order to be properly immersed in the setting?  What the player should know is the area they come from as well as their ethnic and racial backgrounds, and maybe a passing knowledge on the politics (e.g. who hates who?).  However, a player may need to know more based on their profession, especially the Emissary, who's expected to have a sound grasp on politics as well as various languages and cultures.

Is this a cooperative game? If so, what brings the player characters together, keeps them together, and rewards them together?

- The game is cooperative by necessity; they aren't just all tossed into a tavern and expected to coalesce into a party.  Why is it by necessity?  Because there are a lot of things any single character or profession cannot do alone in order to achieve their goals.  The securities mastermind needs muscle.  The master of martial arts needs a contractor and leads.  The info/tech hunter may need the aforementioned professions to safely secure his objects of pursuit.  And the elite foreign operations soldier needs a combat unit as well as local intelligence. 

In many instances, the leader of the party is the guy who hired the other characters (not necessarily with his own money), which keeps everyone together by contract.  In other cases, group members may come together as a motivation towards the same goal, in which the person who planned the endeavor could reach out to them via contacts and networks; they don't have to arbitrarily be present in the same location in order for them to band together.

The details of the combat system tell me little about the core of what I'd be looking to experience if I played Nevercast. For players who've never been in a fist-, sword- or gun-fight, "realism" gets pretty abstract. If I was playing a character who thought the way real people do, I'd probably try to avoid violence anyway.

- I would like to flatly point out that Nevercast is not about combat.  It's not really about anything in specific.  It's not even about realism; that's just a tool I use to present the world in concretely defined manner so that the players fall into the illusion that the game world exists independently of them.  My intention is to present the game in the manner of, "This is the world of Nevercast.  This is how it works.  Enjoy".

Secondly, I don't expect players to have an understanding of combat, which is why I plan on writing basic tutorials on complex skill usage ("It's generally a good idea to do this when..." ; "General Strategies:").  Also, I will be writing scripts for NPC types.

Furthermore, I also expect players to be inclined to avoid combat because it is gritty and extremely lethal in this system, which can only reinforce the game's intention of making the world and its characters believable.  Of course, some professions must get in harm's way as dictated by their skill set (they may not know how to make money any other way), so discretion will be required in order to play these character types for any extended length of time.

Professions in which combat is guaranteed: Master of Martial Arts; Special Operations; Operative (assassin)

Professions in which combat is likely to happen: Operative; Information/Technology Hunter; Wanderer

Professions in which combat is unlikely: Master of Internal Arts; Systems/Securities Mastermind; Smuggler

Professions in which combat is highly unlikely: Master of the Sciences; Emissary

[David Berg]

Thanks for the responses.  I have a lot of follow-up questions, but first let me ask: is this useful to you?

I'm trying to figure out why I might want to play this game, and what sort of fun I could expect, and how the play group could come to an agreement on those two things. 

"No specific fictional influences referenced" and "PCs come together to derive mutual benefit from disparate abilities" might cause problems for me in those areas.

On realism:
You seem comfortable with what you've got in terms of outcomes and timing.  You seem to know what you want in terms of the match between (a) information apprehended by the character and (b) information given to the player, and I assume you'll get that finalized just fine.  So I don't have much to contribute here.  Just for the sake of comparison, though, here's an example "realistic" game: "GM describes a simple fictional area in extreme detail, then play begins.  Players stay in-character the whole time.  You can only speak (a) in-character or (b) to describe your character's actions.  The GM describes unfolding events at real-time speed, and their consequences as well.  If the players don't decide and act in the allowed time frame, their characters don't either.  All resolution is handled invisibly by the GMs brain."  So, y'know, there's different flavors of realism out there.  For your pitch, it might be worthwhile to specify which flavor Nevercast is.

[Ar Kayon]

Your example specifies realism via the meta-game agenda, or social contract.  To clarify, my intention is to specify realism via mechanical simulation, and encompasses the following:

1. Characters' personality and philosophical profiles, as well as their physical and mental makeup (e.g. no umbrella attributes)
2. Skill usage and character development
3. Physics
4. NPC behavior, and to some degree PC behavior (things that the player cannot directly control, such as how their character experiences fear)
5. Setting dynamics (politics, social theory, economics, science and technology, culture, etc.)
6. "Concreteness", to maintain internal logic and to minimize superfluous, subjective interpretations of events.

[Ar Kayon]

On Stealth (pending; rough draft mechanics)
The system takes 2 major factors heavily into consideration: line of sight and sound.  Thus, there are two checks made to determine success when sneaking: one for sight and another for sound.  If any of these checks fail, then you are noticed.  How much you are noticed is dependent upon the gradient of success by the target's awareness check.  For example, a minor success might convince the target that what he noticed was inconsequential.

1. Line of Sight (awareness vs. cover)
A direct line of sight is a base +10 modifier to the target's awareness, 0 modifier in the target's periphery.  If behind the target, then you do not need to make an attribute check for sight.
*Hard Cover
*Camouflage
*Lighting - if a light source extends your shadow, then the target's awareness is compared against the visibility of the shadow itself (a passive score determined by the GM).
*Distance
*Movement
*Number of Entities (such as in a crowd)
If the target is actively looking for you (to improve awareness attribute check), then he needs to stop and pay attention (analogous to using combat time).  If he's moving around, he has to use his concentration effort pool.  The randomizer is applied, as usual.

2. Sound (awareness vs. agility)
The type of movement you use to sneak determines the base modifier to your agility attribute: sprint (-6), run/dash (-4), standard movement (-2), combat step (0), still (automatic success). 
The amount of external sound in the area improves upon your base modifier.  Noise increments are as follows: extremely loud (+10; like a nightclub), very loud (+8), loud (+6), moderate (+4), minor (+2), and minimal (0).  Distance and insulation also provide a noise buffer.
If your equipment is making noise, you are on bad flooring, or you are breathing heavily from a failed composure check, you suffer penalties to your sound check.


Continued...
1. If the attacker is in plain view, is the target aware of his hostile intentions?  This requires the insight attribute, and you get a bonus to your check if you are actively using your concentration effort pool to read the potential assailant's signals (body language, tone of voice, etc.).  Failure means the attacker gets a surprise attack bonus vs. your reflex score.   If you fail the reflex check, the attack catches you unaware (your passive defense score is terrible when you are unaware; if your opponent is using a lethal weapon, it's practically a guaranteed kill.)
(Note: If you suffer a critical failure when reading someone's intent, they will notice your overt facial expressions).  Your opponent uses his charisma attribute to hide intent. 

2. If you notice your opponent, combat time is in play.  The standard rules for combat (pending) is that when it is initiated by someone else, you may not make turn actions in the first round if your reflex score is 5 or below (although you can make response actions).  You also lose 1 action, and for every reflex point below 5, you lose another, which means that if your score is 3 or below, you may not take response actions and any attacks made against you are compared against your passive defense.  Your opponent also receives applicable flank and back attack bonuses if he uses his first combat action to attack you from those positions.

(Note: Still tooling around with mechanics for when you are surprised during combat.)